-:^-.t''^' u <<^^ J^ h/^ ^,^r LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. ^. Received Sejjteinber, .1880. Aitessions No. ^7«^<^"2 — She/f iVo. MAY, 1839. NEW BOOKS DO^ TlKll (g@y^§l ©IF ^y [15L[l(g^TQ@[M BY J. G. & F. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YAJMl,-JUS!JJ-lll*iIERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. SECOND EDITION A TREATIS^^on the CHUR-€H of CHRIST. Designed chiefly for the use of Students in Theology. With a Supplement, containing Rephes to Objections, especially from unfulfilled Prophecy. By the Rev. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. Of Worcester College, Oxford; Author of " Origines Liturgicse." In 2 vols. 8vo. 11. 8s. {Now ready.') *^* The Supplement may he had separately, price Qd. II. The CHURCH of ROME in her PRIMITIVE PURITY, conn- pared with the CHURCH of ROME at the PRESENT DAY; being a candid Examination of her Claims to Universal Dominion. Addressed, in the spirit of Christian kindness, to the Roman Hierarchy. By JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, D.D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the Diocese of Vermont, U. S. First London Edition, revised and corrected by the Author, With an Introduction by the Rev. HENRY MELVILL, B.D. In small 8vo. 8s. 6d. (Just published.) III. AMERICA and the AMERICAN CHURCH. By the Rev. HENRY CASWALL, M.A. Rector of Christ Church, Madison, Indiana ; and late Professor in the Theological Seminary of the Diocese of Kentucky; Ten Years resident in the United States. With Map and Plates. In small 8vo. 9s. 6d. B BOOKS FUBLISHKD IV. A SUMMARY of the WRITINGS of LACTANTIUS. By the Rev. JACOB HENRY BROOKE MOUNTAIN, M.A. V'icar of Hemcl Hempstead, Herts, and Rector of Bhmham, Beds. In 8vo. 5s. Gd. INSTITUTIONES PLE: or MEDITATIONS and DEVOTIONS Originally collected and published by H. I. in 16.30; and in later Editions ascribed to the learned Bishop LAUNCELOT ANDREWS. arranged by the Rev. W. H. IIA Preacher of the Charterhouse. In ISmo. 7s. ( Noiv readij.) Edited and arranged by the Rev. W. H. HALE, M.A. Preacher of the Charterhouse. VI. An ECCLESIASTICAL DICTIONARY: Or MANUAL of REFERENCE, intended to supply the Student of CHURCH HISTORY with concise Information, and an Explanation of Terms respecting ECCLESIASTICAL ANTK^'ITIES, HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, RITUAL, GEOGRAPHY and ARCHITECTURE Edited by the Rev. S. R. MA IT LAND, Librarian to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. To appear Quarterly, in Parts, closely printed in double columns, and arranged Alphabetically. To be completed in Six Vols. 8vo. A Prospectus containing the Names of the Contributors and further Details will shortly be issued. VII. THE FOURTH PART OF The OLD TESTAMENT; VV'ith a Commentary consisting of Short Lectures for the Daily L'se of Families. By the Rev. CHARLES GIRDLESTONE, M.A. Rector of Alderlcy, Cheshire. In this Edition of the Hoi.y Bibli; it has been the chief object of the Editor to furnish Families with an Exposition for Daily Reading. Tiie Scripture is divided info panigriijjhs of a convenient length, and the explanatory and prac- tical matter is digested, under each j)orlion, into one consecutive Lecture, so as to demand of tiie Reader no jjrevious study or attention. In 8vo, 9s. {Now rcadi/.) Lately published, Parts I., II. and III., price 95. each. BY J. G. & V. RIVINGTON. VIII. THE SECOND EDITION OF PORTRAIT of an ENGLISH CHURCHMAN, By the Rev. WILLIAM GRESLEY, M.A. Author of " Ecclesiastes Anglicanus, a Treatise on Preaching. Small 8vo. 7s. IX. PRIZE ESSAY. The PAROCHIAL SYSTEM ; an Appeal to English Churchmen. By the Rev. HENRY W. WILBERFORCE, M.A. To this Essay the Prize of Two Hundred Guineas, offered by the Christian Influence Society, has been adjudged by the Rev. Dr. Dealtry and the Rev. Professor Scholefield. Second Edition. Small 8vo, 3s. 6d. X. THE CONCLUDING SERIES OF The BIOGRAPHY of the EARLY CHURCH. Forming the Fifteenth Volume of the Theological Library. Contents : — Origin — Cyprian — Novatian — Dionysius of Alexandria — Paul of Samosata. By the Rev. R. W. EVANS, M.A. Vicar of Tarvin, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. In small 8vo. With Frontispiece. Qs. Lately published, The First SERIES. With Frontispiece. Small 8 vo. 6s. XI. A VINDICATION of the APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. By the Rev. JOHN SINCLAIR, M.A. F.R.S.E. Of Pembroke College, Oxford ; Minister of St. Paul's Chapel, Edinburgh. In I2mo. (In the Press.) XII. PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to LATIN PROSE COMPOSITION. By THOMAS KERCHEVER ARNOLD, M.A. Rector of Lyndon, and late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. In 8vo. (In the Press.) Lately published by the same Author, A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to GREEK PROSE COMPOSITION. In 8vo. 5s. Qd. 4 BOOKS PLBLISHED XIII. The CLOUD of WITNESSES : A SERIES of DISCOURSES on the Eleventh Chapter of St. Paul's EpisUe to the HEBREWS. By the Rev. JAMES S. M. ANDERSON, M.A. Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen; Chaplain to the Queen Dowager; and Perpetual Curate of St. George's Chapel, Brighton. In 8vo. CAVflr/i/ ready.) XIV. ECCLESIASTICAL BIOGRAPHY ; Or LIVES of EMINENT MEN, connected with the History of Religion in Plngland ; from the Commencenicnt of the Reformation to the Revolution; selected and illustrated with Notes. By the Rev. CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D. Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. Third Edition, rexased, with additional Notes, and other improvements. Printed uniformly with the " Chkistian Institutes," by the same Editor. In Four Vols. 8vo. (Nearh/ ready.) XV. THE FOURTH EDITION OF A PLAIN and SHORT HISTORY of ENGLAND for CHILDREN In Letters from a Father to his Son. With a Set of Questions at the end of each Letter. By the DEAN OF CHESTER, Editor of the " Cottager's Monthly Visitor." With Frontispiece. 2s, 6d. halfbound. XVI. S. JOANNIS CHRYSOSTOMI HOMILI^ in MATTH/EUM. Tcxtum ad fidem Codicum MSS. castigavit, variis Lcctionibus et Adnotatione critica instruxit FREDERICUS FIELD, A.M. Coll. S.S. Trin. Cantab. Socius. In 3 vols. 8vo. {In the Pnss.) XVIi. A FOURTH VOLUME of PAROCHIAL SERMONS. By JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, B.D. Vicar of St. Mary the Virgin's, Oxford, and Fellow of Oriel College. In Svo. 105. 6d. Latcli/ pulilishid, New Edition of Vols. I., II. and III., price 10s. 6d. each. BY J. G. & F. RIVINGTON. O XVIII. The PRINCIPLES of the JESUITS, developed in a Collection of Extracts from their own Authors: to which are prefixed, a Brief Account of the Origin of the Order, and a Sketch of its Institute. In 8vo. 8s, Lateli/ published, COiiSTlTUTlONES SOCIETATIS SESV. Svo. 9s. 6d. XIX. SERMONS, Preached chiefly in the Chapel Royal at Whitehall. By FREDERICK OAKELEY, M.A. Fellow of Balliol College, Prebendary of Lichfield, and one of the Preachers at Whitehall. In Svo. 10s. 6d. INSTRUCTIONS for the USE of CANDIDATES for HOLY ORDERS, and of the PAROCHIAL CLERGY, as to Ordination, Licenses, Induction, Pluralities, Residence, &c. &c. with Acts of Parlia- ment relating to the above, and Forms to be used. Fifth Edition, containing all the recent alterations in the Laws relating to the Clergy. By CHRISTOPHER HODGSON, Secretary to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. In Svo. 9s. XXI. A SECOND VOLUME OF SERMONS. By HENRY MELVILL, B.D. Minister of Camden Chapel, Camberwell; and late Fellow and Tutor of St. Peter's College, Cambridge. Second Edition. In Svo. 10s. 6c?. Lately published, The THIRD EDITION of the FIRST VOLUME. Svo. 10s. Qd. XXII. SERMONS, DOCTRINAL and PRACTICAL. To which is added, an Assize Sermon. By the Rev. WILLIAM HOWORTH, M.A. Rector of Whitton c. Thurlston, Suffolk; and Curate of March, Isle of Ely, In 12mo, 4s, ed. O IJOOKS PUlil.ISIlKI) XXIII. THE TWENTY-SECOND EDITION OF DEBRETT'S COMPLETE PEERAGE of the UNITED KING- DOM of ENGLAND and IRELAND. Corrected to the praent tune. With the Anns of the Peers. In Post 8vo. 1/. 84. (Noic ready.) Also (uniformly printed) The Seventh Edition of DEBRETT'S BARONETAGE of ENGLAND. Including an Account of the Baronets created at Her Majesty's Coronation. With the Arms of the Baronets. 1/. OS. XXIV. SECOND SERIES OF HOURS of DEVOTION, For the Promotion of True Christianity and Family Worship. Translated from the German. By E. J. BURROW, D.D. F.R.S. and F.L.S. In Svo. {Preparing for publication.) Lately published, the Second Edition of the First Series. Svo. 12s. XXV. An INTRODUCTION to the CRITICAL STUDY of ECCLESI- ASTICAL HISTORY, attempted in an Account of the Progress, and a Short Notice of the Sources, of the History of the Church. By JOHN GOULTER DOWLING, M.A. Of Wadham College, 0.\ford ; Rector of St. Mary-de-Crj'pt, Gloucester. In Svo. 9s. XXVI. A COMPANION to the FIRST LESSONS for the SERVICES of the CHURCH, on Sundays, and the Fasts and Festivals. By JAMES DUKE COLERIDGE, LL.D. Rector of Lawhitton, and \'icar of Lewannick, Cornwall, and Prebendary of Exeter Cathedral. In small Svo. 3s. 6d. XXVII. Not TRADITION, but SCRIPTURE. By P. N. SHUTTLEWORTil, D.D. Warden of New College, Oxlbrd. Second Edition. Small Svo. 3s. 6d. BY J. G. 8: F. RIVTNGTON. 7 XXVIII. An ABRIDGMENT of HOOKER'S ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. By the Rev. J. B SMITH, D.D. M.R.S.L. Head Master of Horncastle Grammar School; Author of the " Mamial of the Rudiments of Theology." In 12mo. {Preparing for publication.) XXIX. The ANNUAL REGISTER: or a VIEW of the HISTORY and POLITICS of the Year 1838. In 8vo. ]6s. {In the Press.) Lately published, the Volume for the Year 1837. Svo. 16s. XXX. THE SEVENTH EDITION OF A COMMENT on the COLLECTS appointed to be used in the Church of England before tlie Epistle and Gospel on Sundays and Holydays throughout the Year. By JOPIN JAMES, D.D Prebendary of Peterborough. 12mo. Gs. XXXI. THE SECOND EDITION OF LECTURES on the PROPHETICAL OFFICE of the CHURCH, Viewed relatively to ROMANISM and POPULAR PROTESTANTISM. By JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, B.D. Fellow of Oriel College, and Vicar of St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford. In Svo. 10s. 6d. XXXII. THE FIFTH EDITION OF SPECULUM GREGIS ; or, Parochial Minister's Assistant. ' By the Rev. R. B. EXTON. " He understands but little of the nature and obligations of the priestly office, who thinks he has discharged it by peiforniing the public appointnaents." — Bishop Burnet. " The readiest way of finding access to a man's heart ' is to go into his house.' " — Chalmers'' Christian and Civic Economy. Price 5s, bound in roan, with a clasp. RELIGIOUS BOOKS FOR GENERAL READING. IN UNIFORM VOLUMES, PRICE Gs. EACH, TOE THEOLOGICAL LIBliARY. EDITORS: The VEN. ARCHDEACON LYALL, M.A. The REV. HUGH JAMES ROSE, B.D. VOLUMES PUBLISHED: I. The LIFE of WrCLIF. By CHARLES WEBB LE BAS, M.A. Priucipal of the Easl India College, Herts; aned on the same principle, and carried only to the same extent, as bij Protestants in general, the Disse/itets themselves not excepted 155 Chap. IX. Proof that the Church of Rome not onlt/ carries its authority further, than is necessary for its own pre- servation, but that its authority is exercised in such a manner, as to extinguish the right of private judc- ment in its own members, and to trample on the Rights of all other Churches 177 Chap. X. The Proof of the preceding Proposition, continued and concluded 201 Appendix . 251 COMPARATIVE VIEW, CHAP. I. OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHURCHES OF ENGLAND AND ROME, IN RESPECT TO ARTICLES OF FAITH. THE LATTER FOUNDS ITS DOCTRINES ON TWO EQUAL AND INDEPEN- DENT AUTHORITIES, SCRIPTURE Al^B TRADI TION. THE FORMER FOUNDS ITS DOCTRINES ON SCRIPTURE ALONE. THE DIFFERENCE BE- TWEEN THE TWO CHURCHES, IN THIS RESPECT, STATED AND EXPLAINED. Xn taking a comparative view of the Churches of England and Rome, the Doctrines, respectively maintained by the two Churches, present themselves as the objects of primary consideration. The truth or falsehood of a religion is the truth or falsehood of its doctrines : for alterations may be made, both in the ceremonies of a Church, and in the authority of a Church, without affecting the truth of the religion, which it professes. But that we may be enabled to judge of the truth or falsehood of Doc- trines, we must previously know on whdii foundations they are built. In the first place then we must inquire into the fundamental difference between the two Churches, in respect to their Doctrines : and, when it has been proved that the two Churches are A 2 Comparative View of the Chap. I. fundamental!)' distinct, we must in the next place inquire, whether the foundation, on which the Church of Rome has huilt, ("independently of the foundation common to both Churches) is composed of solid, or of sandy materials. The decision of this question will oiahle us to judge, whether the Doctrines, which disti/iguish the Church of Rome from the Church of England, are true or false. When the latter question has been determined, which is of peculiar importance at the present juncture, and has been rendered more so hy the attempts to conceal the differences wliich we are chiefly concerned to know, we may proceed to the examination of the principles, on which the two churches have acted in regard to Church-Ceremofiics. And lastly we may consider the principles, on which they have acted in the exercise of Cimvch-Aathoritj/ ; a subject, that will lead to the consideration of other subjects con- nected with it, which are now of great practical importance. In the hrst place then let us endeavour to prove, that the two Churches, in respect to Doctrines, arc fundamentally distinct. For this purpose, it is necessary to siicw, not only that they differ in many .^iiii^le articles of faith, but that the faith of the one is founded on a different basi.^ from the faith of the other; qv (to change the metaphor) that the sources, from which tlie two Churches derive their Articles of Faith, are not the same. If this be true, there is no agreement, either in Churcli-Authority, or in Church-C/cremonies, which can remove that inherent distinction. Not, that they do agree in either of these respects, not even, as is pretended, in the exercibc of Church-Authorit]/, as will hereafter C H A p I . Ch urch es of England and Rome. 3 be shewn, when we have examined the sources of Faith, and the doctrines, which thence respectively flow. That there is one source of Christian Faith, which is common to the two Churches may be readily granted : for the authority of the Bible, however variously interpreted, is admitted by Christians of every description. But if the Bible is the sole foun- tain of Christian Faith to the Church of England, and not the sole fountain of Christian Faith to the Church of Rome, the authority admitted by the latter, in addition to the authority of the Bible, must constitute an essential difference between the two churches. Now this essential difference can be re- moved by no other means, than by shewing, either that the Church of Rome does 7iot add to the Bible an authority considered as equal to the Bible, or that the Church of England agrees in such addition with the Church of Rome. No attempt has been made to demonstrate either of these propositions in clear and express terms. But sotne authority (it is said) is recognised by both Churches, in addition to the authority of the Bible: and the bare recognition of a second authority is sufficient (as is further said) to place the two Churches on a level. This argument has certainly involved the present question in great confusion; and this very confusion has enabled the advocates of the Church of Rome to draw conclusions in its favour, which they could not have drawn, if the propo- gition had been stated vvith precision. For the additional authority, recognised by the Church of Rome, is regarded as something, both equal to. 4 Comparative Viexv of the Chap. I. and indepcndejit of, the Bible: whereas the Church of England acknowledges no authority, but such as is wholly and solely dependent on tlie Bible. When we appeal to our Liturgy and Articles, which is done only in arguing with those who have previously achwzclcdgcd them, we do not appeal to them as documents, having validity in themselves, but as documents having no other validity, than what they derive from the Bible; as documents, which are only so far valid as they agree with the Bible. On the other hand, when a Romanist appeals to Tradition, as a Rule of Faith, he appeals to an authority, neither derived from nor in any way dependent on, the Bible. He regards Tradition as an authority, which existed even before the New Testament : as an authority proceeding equally from Christ and his Apostles, though trans- mitted through a different channel; as an authority conveying doctrines, delivered orally by the Apostles, and recorded in the works of the Fathers. That this representation of Romish Tradition, and of the consequent characteristic difference between the two Churches, is perfectly correct, appears from the representations, which have been made on that subject, by the most distinguished among the Romish writers themselves. It will be sufficient however to quote the explanations, which have been given in the works of Cardinal Bcllarmine, and in tlic theological Lectures at the College of Maynooth. We may appeal to Bellarmine, as the most acute, the most methodical^ the most comprehensive, and at the same time one of the most candid, among the contro- versialists of die Church of Rome. And we appeal to Chap. I. Churches of England and Rome. 5 the theological Lectures, now given in the College of Maynooth, as officially expressing (what we are highly concerned to know) the system of Divinity, now taught in the United Kingdom to the Clergy of that Church '. Further when such authorities agree, as they do on the subject of Tradition, they may be considered as expressing the general sentiments of that Church. But nei- ther the works of Bellarmine, nor the Lectures of Maynooth, nor the Exposition of Bossuet (which will not be left unnoticed,) are here quoted, on the subject of Tradition, for any other purpose, than to explain the state of the question. For when the question has been stated and explained, which is the sole object of the present chapter, a further appeal will be made, in the following chapter, to the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent, which officially declare the tenets of the Church of Rome. The explanations of Tradition, which have been given by Cardinal Bellarmine, are contained in his Treatise on " The word of God.'' (De Verbo Dei.) The three first books of this Treatise, relate to the xvritten Word of God (Verbum Dei scriptum) as con- tained in the Old and New Testament. But the fourth book, which relates wholly to Tradition, is entitled ' Of the unwritten Word of God (De Verbo Dei non scripto) ; and declares therefore by its very title, the quality of the Tradition, which is the sub- ' The substance of the theological Lectures, given in th6 College of Maynooth, is contained in the following Work, Trac- iatus de Ecclesia Christi, ad usiim Theologies Candidatonim, Jccedunt duic Appendices, de Traditione, et Conciliis generali- bus. Autore L. JE. Delahogue. Dublinii, 1809. 8vo. 6 Comparative Viexu of the Chap. I. ject of that book. In the second chapter of this Work, Bellarmine observes that, though the term Tradition, in its mosi extensive sense, may be applied to xcritteu, as well as to unwritten doctrines, it is commonly used in the latter sense *. But, as he further observes, such docrines are called umcritten doctrines, in contradistinction to the written doctrines, or Scrip- tare, not because such doctrines are no where written, but because they were not written by the authors themselves \ Tliey were written by the Greek and Latin Fathei^s *. Bellarmine then pro- ceeds to describe the kinds of Tradition. The first kind he calls divine Tradition ; which relates to doctrines delivered to the Apostles by Christ hiinselfy but which, though taught also by the Apostles, were left by them unrecorded. The second kind he calls apostolical Tradition ; which relates to Doctrines, likewise taught by the Apostles, and likewise left u?irecorded ; yet so far differing from the former kind, that the Apostles received them not from the instructions of Christ, but from the dictates of the Holy Spirit ^ Now Doctrines, taught by the * Nomen traditionis gcncrale est, et significat omnem doc- trinam, sive scriptani, sive non scriptam, qua; ab uno com- municatur alteri. — Tamesti vero traditionis nomen gencrale sit, tamen hoc ipsuni nomen accommodatum est a Theologis ad sig- nificandam tantum doctrinam non scriptam. Lib. iv. cap. 2. ' Vocatur autem doctrina non scnpta^ non ea qua; jittsquam scripta est, scd qunc non scripta est a primo aiictore. lb. ib. * A catalogue of the Fathers, who are supposed to be tlie principal recorders of the nmirittcn Word is given by Cardinal liaronius in liis Annales Ecclesiastici, Tom. I. p. ■iTi — H8. * Divimt dicuntur, quic acceptac sunt ab ipso Chrislo Apostolos docente, et nusquam in divinis Uteris inveniuntur. — ApoftulicKC Chap. I. Churches of England and Rome, 7 Apostles, whether originally received from Christ himself, or afterwards suggested to tliem by the Holy Spirit, were, in either case, doctrines apostolical: and hence the term ' apostolical,' though used as an epithet descriptive of the second kind, is fre- quently applied also to Tradition of the Jirst kind. On the other hand, the term ' divine,' though used as an epithet descriptive of the Jirst kind, is applied also to Tradition of the second kind. For Doctrines, suggested to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit, were no less divine, than the Doctrines, which they had received from Christ himself**. It appears then, that both kinds may properly be referred to one and the same class: and they frequently are so referred. Indeed they are akvays comprehended in the term ' Tradition,' when Tradition is used, as at present, to denote the un- xvritten IFord of God: for they are nothing less, than the constituent parts of that unwritten Word ^. But beside the two kinds of Tradition, which thus constitute (or are supposed to constitute) the nmvritten Word of God, there is a third kind of Tradition mentioned by Bellarmine, which must be carefully distinguished from the two former, as it is totally different from them, both in origin, and in Apostolicce tradltiones proprie dicuntur illae, quag ab Apostolis institutae sunt, non tamen sine assistentia Spiritus Sancti, et nihilominus non extant scriptse in eorum epistolis. lb. ib. ^ Hence Bellarmine in the same chapter observes, * Soleut tamen interdum etiam divince traditiones dici apostolica-, et npostolicce dicuntur divincB. '' This will further appear from another quotation about the untvritten Word, where Bellarmine describes it as consisting of the divine and apostolical traditions. See the following Note 1 1 . 8 Comparative Viexv of the Chap. I. quality. The two former, as we have already seen, claim a divine origin : and indeed, unless a divine origin were ascribed to them, they could not be at all considered as a part of God's Word. But the thii'd kind of Tradition is confessedly of human origin ; and it is described as such by the Romish writers themselves. Nor is the third kind of Tra- dition less different in quality than in origin. The two former relate to Doctrines, or Articles of Faith; and are received by the Church of Rome as a Rule of Faith. But the third kind relates merely to Church Ceremonies, and is called therefore the Tra- dition of the Church, or Ecclesiastical Tradition. Now this Ecclesiastical Tradition Bellarmine de- scribes as consisting of certain ancient custems (con- suetudines qucedam antique,) which having ojigi- nated, partly in the practice of the Bishops, partly in the practice of the People, have gradually, and by tacit consent, acquired the force of a lazv *. The same thixcfold division, which is made by Cardinal Bellarmine, is made also in the theological Lectures at INIaynooth, as appears from the treatise De Ecclesiii Christi', where Tradition is likewise divided into the three kinds of divine, apostolical, and ecclesiastical. But, as the explanations, which are there given on the subject of Tradition, accord exactly with those of Bellarniine, it is unnecessary to repeat them, though the coincidence itself is "worthy of our notice. Supported therefore by these ' Eeclesiasticie traditioues proprie dicuntur cnnsuetudinen qusedam antiqua*, vol a pra-latis vcl a populis inchoaUc, qu.T paulatini, tacito consensu populorum, vim k-gis obtinucriuit. lb. ib. 9 r. 398. Chap. I. Churches of England and Roim, 9 authorities, I will proceed to di further investigation of the Tradition, which the Church of Rome re-.;;-^ __i.^^ ceives as the unwritten Word of God, and which it regards as a Rule of Faith, equally with the xvritten Word. In this investigation we have manifestly no con- cern with any other kinds of Tradition than those which constitute (or are supposed to constitute) the unwritten Word of God. We are concerned then wholly and solely with what are called dimne and apostolical Traditions. This indeed is very clearly stated in the Treatise, De Ecclesid Christi "*. " Quob nunc movetur controversia (says the author of that Treatise) est tan turn de divinis et apostoUcis traditi- onibus." Whether any such traditions can be proved to eMSty that is, whether any doctrines recorded by the Fathers, but 7iot recorded in the New Testa- ment, can be shewn to be really of divine and apostolical origin, is a question which will be ex- amined hereafter. Ouv present object is to ascertain, what the tenets of the Church of Rome, in respect to Tradition, really are: for till the subject of discussion is understood, it is useless to argue about its truth, or falsehood. Now the subject of Tradition, which to the Church of Rome, is a Rule of Faith, how-, ever intelligible it may be thought by those, who have not examined it in all its bearings, is really one of the most intricate subjects in dogmatic theology. And it will be absolutely impossible to conduct with precision our present inquiry, unless this Rule of Faith be kept free from intermixture with any other kinds of Tradition, than those, of which »^ lb. 10 Comparative View of the Chap. I. it is composed. We must be careful tlien to avoid the confusion, which vvhould now arise, from a reference to the thirty -fourth Article of our Church; though that Article relates eapressly to Tradition. And it is the more necessary to guard against this confusion, because the danger of falling into it is so much the greater, as the thirty-fourth Article is the onli/ one, among the thirty-nine, in which the term * Tradition,' occurs. But it is evident, that the term is there used in no other sense, than that, which is affixed by Bellarmine to the third kind of Tradition. This kind of Tradition is called, as we have seen, ecclesiastical Tradition. Now the very title of the thirty-fourth Article is, ' Of the Traditions of the Church ;' an expression evidently synonymous with ecclesiastical Traditions. And if any doubt remained about the similarity of their meaning, that doubt would be removed by the contents of the Article. " It is not necessary (says this article) *' that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places *' one or utterly like." Again, says this Article, ** Whosoever, through his private Judge- ** ment, willingly and purposely doth openly break " the Traditions and Cereynonies of the Church, ** &c." Since then in this Article traditions and ccremonits are thus mentioned together^ they must necessarily be understood as having a similar mean- ing. And this meaning exactly corresponds with the description given by Bellarmine of ecclesiastical Tradition ; or Tradition, which relates, as he says, to certain ancient customs (consuetudines qua:dam anti- ques.) This Article therefore was merely intended to oppose the tenet of the Church of Rome, that customs, Chap. I. Churches of England and Rome. 1 1 or ceremonies of the Church, sanctioned by traditional and immemorial usage, had the force of a laWy and could not be changed. It is in the sixth Article, as also in the twentieth, and the twenty 'first, that our Church opposes Tradition, as a Rule of Faiths though the term ' Tradition' is not used in them. The subject of inquiry being now explained, let us proceed to the state of the question, as it aifects the Church of Rome on the one hand, and the Church of England on the other. Now the state of the question, in reference to the two Churches, is delivered by Bellarmine in the following words. " JVe (says Bellarmine) assert, that the necessary " doctrine, whether relating to faith, or to morals, " is not all expressly contained in Scripture ; and " therefore, that beside the zvritten Word of God, " there is a necessity for an unwritten Word, that " is the divine and apostolical traditions. But they " (namely the Protestants) teach, that all things " necessary to faith and morals are contained in " the Scriptures, and therefore that there is no need " of any unwritten Word"." Having thus explained the characteristic df- ference between the Church of Rome, and all " Nos asserimus in Scripturis non contineri expresse totam doctrinam necessariam, sivecleFiDE,sivedeMORiBus; etproinde, prseter Verbum Dei scriptum, requiri etiam Verbum Dei non scrip- turn, id est, diviuas et apostolicas traditiones. At ipsi docent in Scripturis omnia contineri ad fidem et mores hecessaria, etpro- inde non esse opus idlo verba non scripio. Likewise Dr. Delahogue (de Ecclesia Cliristi, p. 403.) says, "Inprincipiis Protestantium, qui traditiones divinas et apostolicas non agnoscunt, liaec duo sunt admitteuda, scripturas et necessarias esse, et sufficere ad complendam fidem. Atqxd hmc duofakissima sunt. 12 Comparative Vierv of the Chap. I. Protestatit Churches, in respect to Tradition as a Rule of Faith, lie proceeds in a subsequent chapter to assign a reason (such as it is) why the Church of Rome acknowledges a second Rule of Faith in Tradition. " The total Rule of Faith *' (he says) is the Word of God, or his Revelation to " the Church ; which is divided into tzco partial rules, " SCRIPTURE and tradition. Scripture indeed, " inasmuch as it is a rule, hath this quality, that " whatever it contains is necessarily true, and to be " believed ; and that whatever is repugnant to it, is " necessarily false, and to be rejected. Since however *' it is not a total, but a partial rule, the con- " sequence is, that it does not comprise all things, ** and therefore that there are S07ne things relating to " FAITH, which are not contained in it '*." The equal authority, here ascribed to Tradition as a Rule of Faith, is ascribed to it also in the theological Lectures at Maynooth. The proposition announced at the head of the chapter on this subject is, that " there are divine and apostolical tra- " ditions, \\\\\c\\, though they were 7wt xvritten, " have the force of the written law "." I will quote '* Totalis regula fidei est Verbum Dei, sive revelatio Dei Ecclesiae facta, qua; dividitur in duas regulas partiales, scrip- TURAM et TRADiTiONEM. Et quidcm Scriptura, quia est regula, inde habet, ut quicquid continet sit necessario vcruni et cre- dendum, et quicquid ei repugnat sit necessario falsum et repu- diandum. Quia vero non est regula totalis, sed partialis, inde iili accidit, quod non omnia niensuret, et propterea aliquid sit de FiDK, quod in ipsa non continetur. BcUarminus de I'eibo Dei. Lib. IV. cap. 12. *' Existunt traditiones divinr et apostolica, qua;, licet noB scripts vim legis scripta; liabent. lb. p. 399. Chap. I. Churches of England and Rome, 1 3 therefore at present only one more passage on this subject, which shall be taken from the " Exposition " of the doctrine of the Catholic Church in matters " of controversy, by Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux ;" a Work, to which very great deference is paid by the members of the Church of Rome, and of which they have lately published an English translation. In the seventeenth chapter of this Work, which is entitled, ' Scripture and Tradition.' Bossuet says, "Jesus Christ having laid the foundation of his " Church by preaching, the unwritten Word was " consequently the Jirst Rule of Christianity. And " when the writings of the New Testament were " added to it, its authority was uoi forfeited on that *' account : which makes us receive, with equal " veneration, all that has been taught by the Apostles, " whether in writing, or by word of mouth." And he concludes by saying, " Our adversaries should " not be surprised, if we, who are so earnest in col- " lecting all that our Fathers have left us, do pre- " serve the deposit of tradition as carefully, as " that of the scriptures." It appears then from the representations, which the most distinguished among the Romish writers have given of Tradition as a Rule of Faith, that they regard it as an authority, both independent of Scripture, and in all respects equal with Scrip- ture. Indeed whatever can be proved to be the Word of God (for all depends on the proof) must of necessity, whether written, or imwritten, whether preserved by Scripture, or preserved by Tradition, have the same divine authority. There is one point more, which requires ex- 14 Comparative Vieio of the Chap. I. planation, and that indeed a point of no less diffi- culty, than importance. Though Tradition, as a Rule of Faith, has been fully explained in theoiy, yet the practical part, or the application of the Rule, may still be attended with various embarrassments. Nothing indeed can be more precise, as far as theory goes, than the statement of Bellarmine, on the respective provinces of Scripture and Tradition. He admits^ as we have already seen, that some things relating even to Faith arc not contained in Scripture ; and hence we might infer, that these are the things relating to Faith, which our Church has rejected, because they are not contained in Scripture. And so indeed we shall find them to be, when we have analysed the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, and compared them with the thirty-nine Articles. But the line of demarcation between Doctrines founded on Scripture, and Doctrines founded on Tradition, was not drawn by the Council itself. For, the name at least of Scripture is often joined with the name of Tradition, when the Doctrine to be proved derives, in reality, no support from Scripture. It is true, that where Scripture is too notoriously adverse, there is an appeal to Tra- dition, and none to Scripture. But, in other cases, the Decrees of that Council which relate to Doctrines, even to those which Protestants reject, are prefaced by an appeal as well to Scripture, as to Tradition. This txco-j'old appeal had a two-fold advantage. It covered the distinction which might otherwise have been observed in respect to tlie foundation of doctrines. And it served to silence, if not to satisfy the followers of Luther, who had already C H A p. I. Churches of England and Rome, 1 5 rejected Tradition as a Rule of Faith, and of course would reject all Doctrines, which were acknowledged to have no other support. But according to the principles, which the Church of Rome maintains, the authority of Tm- ditiofi is so far from wanting any aid from Scripture, that the contrary is supposed to be the truth. For that Church represents the written Word, not merely as requiring explanation, which in many places it certainly does, but as being so atnbiguous and so per- plejced, that in itself \t is often unintelligible. On the other hand, it considers the unwritten Word as con- taining/w//j/ a7ul clearly what the written Word con- tains Imperfectly and obscurely. To remedy therefore the supposed deficiencies of the written Word, it applies the aid of the unwritten Word. In this man- ner is Tradition made a rule for the iiiterpretation of Scripture : and the imputed ambiguity of the text gives ample scope for the operation of the comment. Thus is Scripture brought under the tutelage of Tradition : and this tutelage is soon converted into a state of vassalage. For since the comment claims the same divine origin as the text itself, that com- ment, if supposed to he full and clear, in proportion as the text is supposed imperfect and obscure, has in fact an authority superior to that of the text. Hence Tradition, which in theory is made a Rule of Faith only equal to Scripture, becomes in practice a Rule of Faith paramount to Scripture. The ambiguity, 2n^ perplexity ascribed to Scrip- ture by the Church of Rome, for the purpose of bringing it under the tutelage of Tradition, is too notorious to require many quotations for that purpose. \6 Comparative View of the Chap. I. Be It sufficient then to produce the evidence of Cardinal Bellarmine, wlio has fully stated the senti- ments of his Church in the fourth book of his treatise, * On the Word of God.' In the fourth Chapter of this Book, he declares that Scripture is very often so ambiguous diudi perplexed, (ambigua etperplexa,) that it is unintelligible, unless explained by some infallible authority "^. He adds, that in very many places we cannot be certain of its meaning, unless we call in the aid of Tradition^K And he concludes with the following observation (founded partly on the authority of a former writer) that the Gospel, W\i\iouiumvritten Tradition, is an empty name, or words xvithout sense "*. The state of the question therefore being now explained, we may proceed in the next chapter to a conjirmation of it, by an appeal to the Council of Trent. '* Sapissime Scriptura ambigua et perplexa est, ut nisi ab aliquo, qui errare 7ion possit, explicetur, non possit intelligi. " After considering the words of Scripture in the first place, and the sense in the second, he adds, " I^gc possumus, plurimis in locis certi esse de secundo, 7iisi accedat Traditio. '^ Sine Iraditionibus non scriptis Evangelium esse purum nomen, id est^ esse tantum voces et verba sine sensu. Chap. II. Churches of England and Rome, 17 CHAP. II. APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. PREVIOUS REMARKS ON THE USE OF TER3IS. PROOF FROM THE DECREES AND CANONS OF THIS COUNCIL, THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME AC- KNOWLEDGES, IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, TWO EQUAL AND INDEPENDENT, AUTHORITIES FOR DOCTRINES, OR RULES OF FAITH. IN- FLUENCE OF TRADITION, AS A RULE OF FAITH, ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME EXEMPLIFIED BY THOSE DECREES AND CANONS. CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE COUNCIL ITSELF. W E appeal to the Council of Trent, in con- firmation of the statements, which were made in the preceding Chapter, because the Decrees and Canons of that Council declare officially the Doctrines of the Church of Rome. But before we quote those De- crees and Canons, it may be proper to make some observations on the terms, which are there employed in reference to our present Inquiry. For a mis- apprehension of those terms, would not only create confusion, but might defeat the very object of the Appeal. The subjects of our present Inquiry are Scripture, and Tradition — Scripture and Tradition, considered, as two Authorities for Doctrines, or two Rules of Faith. And the Design of this Chapter is to shew, 18 Comparative View of the tliat uliat Bellarniine and other Romish writers liavc b?ii(l of Scripture and Tradition, in respect of their Equality and Independence as Rules of Faith', accords with the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent. Since then the Tradition, whicli is 7iow tlie subject of Inquiry, is, equally with Scripture, a Rule of Faithy we njustneyer forget, that all other kinds ofTra- dition, whether they relate to laws, or to customs, or to ceremonies, or to any thing whatever besideyai//(, are irrelevant, and foreign to that Inquiry. We are now concerned with that Tradition aloney from which, conjointly with Scripture the Church of Rome deduces its articles of faith, or doctrines. But even in this Inquiry, confined as it is to articles of faith, or dpctrine§, the term ' Tradition,' may still be taken in two different senses. Sometimes, and indeed 7nost times, the term * Tradition,' denotes the Doctrine transmitted, the Doctrina tradita. At other times it denotes the vehicle, which conveys the Doctrine, or the way by yvhich the Doctrine is transmitted (via qua tram- mittitur Doctrina.) But in general these two senses, though closely alliedy and both of them i^elating to Doctrine, are easily distinguished. Thus, when Cardinal Bellarmine, in the passage last- quoted from his Treatise on the Word of God, speaks of a total Rule pf Faith, comprehendinp; two partial Rules of Faith, in Scripture and Tradition, it is manifest, that, as Scripture there denotes the written Doctrine^ so Tradition there denotes the unxvritten Doctrine. Indeed Bellarmine himself in the second ('hapter of the same Book, has expressly called this very f Sec the quotations in Notes 12, 13. Chap. I. Chap. II. Churches of England and Rome, \9 Tradition, Doci rina non scripta*. In like manner we find in the Treatise De Ecclesia Christi, that the very first Secton on the subject of Tradition is entitled, ' De Traditione, quatenus designat ipsam, quffi traditur, Doctr'mam'^ ' Here then the dis- tinction between the Doctrine, and the Vehicle of the Doctrine is clearly marked. But, at other times, when the term Tradition is left unexplained, we must judge of its meaning from the context, and we shall find that, in the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, the term Tradition is generally left to explain itself. Its meaning however may be always ascertained with sufficient precision, except in some few cases, where ambiguity appears to have been designed. Further, when we use the term * Tradition' to denote, not the Doctrine itself, but the Vehicle of the Doctrine, we must inquire, what qualifying term should be joined with it, in order to describe the Vehicle. For the bare ww^w^/i/zV^ term 'Tradition,' may denote indeed conveyance ; but it leaves us uninformed as to zthat conveyance. Now the Doctrina tradita, or the Doctrine left unwritten by the Apostles, is supposed to have been recorded by the Fathers of the Church, whose writings therefore are regarded as a Repository of the unwritten Doc^ trine. This Doctrina Tradita is further indeed supposed to have been transferred from the Works of the Fathers to the Decrees of General Councils, *■ Taraetsi vero Traditionis nomen generate sit, tamen hoc ipsumnomen accomniodatumest atheologis ad significandamtan- tum Doctrinarii non scriptam. De Verba Dei. Lib. IV. Cap. % ' P. 398. JO Comparative View of the Chap. II. which are theiice regarded, as anotlter Repository. But since no General Council was holden before the fourth Century, the Works of the Fathers must always be regarded as the primary, if not the priii- cipal Repository. And that they are regarded even as the principal Repository, appears from the very appeal which is made to them in the Decrees of the Councils themselves, in the Decrees even of the Council of Trent. Hence Cardinal Baronius, who in the first Volume of his Ecclesiastical Annals has. enumerated the early Fathers, whose Works he con- siders as forming the chief Repository, has concluded his catalogue with the observation, that the things decreed in the sacred Councils, were those very things which the Fathers themselves had received unwritten from their predecessors, and had committed to wri- ting, that they might be more accurately preserved *. Now the qualifying term, Avhich is joined with the term Tradition, when Tradition denotes the Vehicle of the Doctrina tradita, accords with the repre- sentation of Baronius. For Tradition is then called the ancient Tradition of the Fathers (antiqua Pat rum traditio) and so it is called by the Council of Trent. Another observation, relative to the use oi terms, applies to Tradition, according as it is used, either in the singular, or in the plural. When we speak of the divine and apostolical traditions, which were explained in the preceding Chapter, and there shewn 4 Cacterum, quit In sacris sunt Conciliis instituta, ncc ipsa quidem receub fuorunt inventa, sed quae et Potres ipsi a majo- ribus acceperunt sine scriptis, ct, ut accuratius strvarentur, scriptis coHsiguaruut, Baronji Annalcs Ecclebjastici. Tom. I. p. 4hS. ed Antverpin-, IGTO. fol. Chap. II. Churches of England and Roine. 21 to constitute what is considered the unwritten Word of God^y we evidently mean the taiwritten divine and apostolical doctrines. Any one therefore of those unwritten doctrines is a tradition. But Tradition, xvithout an article, denotes the sum total of them. Nor is this comprehensive use of the term at all inconsistent with the nature of the things com- prehended. For since those divine and apostolical traditions are so many divine and apostolical doc- trineSy they very properly constitute Tradition as a Rule of Faith *. Now in the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, the Traditions of the Jpostles (Traditiones Apostolorum) mean so many single Doctrines, \\hereas Tradition in the singular, denotes the zvhole unwritten Doctrine, {tota Doctrina non scripta.) Lastly, in respect to the terms ' divine' and * apostolical,' the former of which (as was shewn in the preceding Chapter) is applied to the Doctrines taught by Christ himself, while the latter is applied to Doctrines suggested to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit, it must be observed, that though the Council of Trent has clearly distinguished between these two kinds of Doctrine, especially in the Decree which ,wiU presently demand our attention, it has not marked the distinction by the use of the epithets^ ^ See the quotation in Note 11. Chap. I. where Bellarmine speaking of the unwritten Word of God says, * that is, the divine and apostolical traditions.' ^ It has been ah-eady observed that Bellarmine!s fourth Book, which wholly relates to Tradition, is entitle^/, ' Of the unwritten Word of God, (De Verbo Dei non scripto.)' Indeed Tradition, as a Rule of Faith, must necessarily correspond to what is called the unwritten doctrine, or unwritten Word of God. 22 Comparative View of the Chap. II. * divine* and * apostolical.' And at other times, when it does use an epithet, it uses the epithet ' apostolical' as a genej'ic term to denote both kinds. Indeed a more appropriate name than that of apostolical could not well be given them. For they relate to Doctrines, which, whether delivered at first by Christ himself, or afterwards suggested by the Holy Spirit, were in either case Doctrines taught by the Apostles '', II. From these introductory observations on the use of terms^ let us proceed to the Decrees and Canons themselves. The first among the Decrees, which relate to Scripture and Tradition, was made at the fourth Session of the Council holden on the 8th of April, 1546\ a few weeks only after the death of Luther. As this Decree is of the highest importance, it will be necessary to quote the words of it at sorne length. " This sacred, oecumenical, ** and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled •• in the Holy Spirit, and presided over by the three " Legates of the Apostolic Sec, having this object " perpetually in view, that, errors being removed, " the real purity of the Gospel may be preserved in " the Church ; which, promise aforetime by the ^' prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus •* Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated by his " ou)i mouthy and afterwards ordained to be preached " to every creature by the Apostles, as being *' a fountain both of saving tt^uth, and instruction of "* In the Roman Catechism, os also in the Trent Confession of laith, both kinds arc likewise included in the term ' apostolical.* Chap. II. Churches of England and Rome, 23 " manners ; knowing further, that this truth and " instruction is contained in the ivritten books, and " in the umvritten traditions, which, having been " received by the Apostles, either from the mouth of '* Christ hi7nself, or from the dictates of the Holy *' Spirit, were handed down, and transmitted even "to us; following the example of the orthodox " Fathers, receives and venerates, with sentiments *' of equal piety and reverence {pari pietatis affectu *' ac reverentia) all the books, as well of the Old as " of the New Testament, since one God was the " author of them both, and also the traditions, ** relating as well io faith, as to morals, inasmuch " as, coming either from the mouth of Christ him- ** self, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, they have " been preserved in the Catholic Church in un- " interrupted succession ^." Then after an enume- ' Sacrosancta cecumenica et generalis TridentinaSynodus, in Bpiritu sancto legitime congregata, praesidentibus in ed eisdem tribus Apostolic'se Sedis legatis, hoc sibi perpetuoante oculos pro- ponens, ut sublatis erroribus puritas ipsa Evangelii in Ecclesid conservetur ; quod promissum ante per prophetas in Scripturis Sanctis Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei filius, proprio ore primum promulgavit, deinde persuos Apostolos, tanquam fontem omnis et salutaris veritatis, et morum disciplinse, omni creaturae praedicarijussit; perspiciensque banc veritatemetdisciplinamcon- tineri in librisscriptis, et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ab ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptse, aut ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditae, ad non usque pervenerunt ; orthodoxorum Patnim exerapla secuta, onines li- bros tarn Veteris quam Novi Testamentl, cum utriusque unua Deussitauctor, necnonTRADiTiONES ipsas, turn ad fidem turn ad MORES pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu sancto dictatas et continua successione conservatas, ^jari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur. Pag. xx. ed. 1564. This T)riginal edition of the Acts of the Council of Trent hsK 24 Comparative View of the Chap. II. ration of the books, which constitute the canon of Scripture according to the Church of Rome, and which will be a subject oi future consideration, tlie Decree proceeds as follows, " But, if any one shall *' not receive, as sacred and canonical, those entire *' books, with all their parts, so as they are usually " read in the Catholic Church, and contained in the " ancient Vulgate Latin edition, or shall knowingly " and designedly contemn the aforesaid traditions, " let him be accursed. Let all men therefore under- " stand, in what order and method, this Synod, after " laying the foundation of a confession of faith ', " is about to proceed, and what testimonies and ** authorities it chiefly intends to use for the con- has the following title. " Canones et Decreta sacrosancti, cecu- menici, et generalis Concilii Tridentini : sub Paulo III, Julio III, Pio IV, Pontificibus Maxiinus. Index Dogmatum et Re- formationis. Romae, apud Paulum Manutium Aldi F. iM.D.Lxiiir. fol." I have not only quoted from this original edition, published under the inspection of Pope Pius IV. but from an attested cop^ of that edition. For to the papal Confirmatio ConciUi which is an- nexed to t!ie Decrees, is added the following tcritlen declaration, " Nos sacri cecumcnici et generalis Concilii Tridentini Secre- tariuS, et Notarii infrascripti, Decreta ipsius sacri Concilii, in prasenti Volumine contentu, cum originalilms contulimus ; ct, quia cum eis concordantia rcperimus idco sic in fideni manu propria subscripsimus." Then follow the names of the Secre- tary and the t>\o Notaries, in their proper hands. This attested Copy is preserved in our Public Library, where it is marked H. 9, 39. ' This refers to the preceding Decree made at the third Session, which is entitled, Decretum de sijmbolo fidei, and relates to the Apostles' Creed, which is there placed as the very brgin- iiing of their Deliberations, in imitation, as is said of the ancient Fathers, * qui sacratioribus Conciliis hoc scutum contra omnes hnercscs in jirincipio suarum aclionum apponcre cousucvcre.' Ch A p. 1 1. Churches of England and Rome. 25 " firmation of Doctrines, and the establishment of " Morals in the Church, (in confirmandis Dog- " matibus, et instaurandis in Ecclesia Moribus '".") This Decree then is decisive on the subject of Scripture and Tradition. We see, that the Church of Rome receives both the written, and the un- written Word, with sentiments of equal piety and reverence. We even see the reason, why the written and the unwritten Word are received as equal: for their equality is founded on the declaration, that the unwritten Word, no less than the written Word, proceeded " either from the mouth of Christ him- self, or from the dictates of the Holy Spirit^' Hence we further perceive the independency of Tra- dition on Scripture ; for they flow from the same fountain head, but flow, from the commencement of their course, through different channels. Again, it is obvious, that this Decree includes both the divine, and the apostolical, traditions, though it does not express them by the terms * divine* and ' apostolical.' But it has no allusion whatever to the third kind, or to ecclesiastical tradition: and for this very reason, that we are litre concerned with no other Tradition, than Tradition as a Rule of Faith. We may further observe, that the traditions '° Si quis autem libros ipsos integros, cum omnibus suis par- tibus, prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt, et in ve- teri Vulgata Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones praedictas sciens et prudens contempserit, anathema sit. Omnes itaque intelligant quo ordine et via ipsa Synodus, post jactum fidei confessionis fun- damentum, sit progressura, et guibus potissimum testimoniis ac prctsidiis, m co9ifirmandis dogmatibus, et instaurandis i?i EcclesiS moribus, sit ustira. lb. p. xxi. 26 Comparative View of the Chap. II. here described, as coming partly from the mouth of Christ, partly from the dictates of the Holy Spirit, in other words, the divine and the apostolical tra- ditions are here^ as elsewhere, made to constitute the umvritten Word, or Tradition as a Rule of Faith. This Decree alotie then affords sufficient confirmation of the statements, which were made in the preceding Chapter. The concluding sentence of this Decree is still worthy of notice : for if additional proof were wanted, that Tradition is there considered, as a Rule of Faith, no less than Scripture, this sentence would afford it. The Decree concludes with the declaration, that what had been said about Scripture and Tradition had been said, that all men might understand, ""what " testimonies and authorities it chiefly intends to " use for the confirmation of doctrines, and the " establishment of morals in the Church"." " As the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent officially declare the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, no au- thority can be wanted for the purpose oi confirming those De- crees and Canons. But, as the Roman Catecliism, which is en- titled, Cateclnsmiis Romanus, ex Decrelo Concilii Trident'nii, et pa Vj Poniificis Maximi jtissu primum edittis, is another docu- ment, to which we may appeal for the purpose of ascertaining tlie doctrines of the Church of Rome, we may notice at least its agreement with the Decree above-quoted. Now the Preface to this Catechism divides the Word of God into the xcritten, and the unwritten Word, or Scripture and Tradition, in the sam« manner as that Decree. " Omnis Doctrina: ratio, qua? fidelibus *' tradenda est, verbo dei continetur, quod in scriptuiiam ** TUADITIONESQUE distributum est." And the editor, in a marginal Note, thus refers to that very Decree, De verbo Dei acripto et 7ion scripto cxtat peculiare Decretum sessione quarti Concilii Tridentini. We may likewise quote the Douay Cate- chism ; for though it has not the saine official authority with the Chap. II. Churches ()f England and Rome. 27 III. After this formal declaration, in respect to the two authointieSy which the Council of Trent thus proposes to employ, in confirmation of Doctrines (in confirmandis doguiatihus,) it follows of course, that these are the authorities, which are produced in the subsequent Decrees. Hence we find, that the Decree, which passed in the very next Session relating to Original Sin, is prefaced by an appeal both to Scripture and Tradition. Again, in the sia^th Session, the Decree relating to Justification is represented as founded on the unwritten Word, no less than on the written word. For the authority, to which reference is made, is so described, that it must at least include Tradition. It is described as a doctrine, " quam Sol justitiae Christus Jesus, " fidei nostras auctoret consummator, docuit, Apostoli " tradiderunty et Catholica Ecclesia, Spiritu sancto *' suggerente, perpetuo retinuit "." Now this ex- actly accords with the description of the Doctrina tradita. The Preface to the Canons of the seventh Session has again an appeal to the Scripturarunt doctrina, and the Apostolic£e traditiones ''. Now the Canons of this Session relate to the seven Sacra- mentSj where the aid of Tiadition is certainly re- the Roman Catechism, it is still worthy of notice, because an abstract of it was published in London in 1809. ' With Per- mission,' as stated on the title-page. Now in the second chap- ter entitled, * Faith expounded,' we find the following question and answer, Q. Are all these points of Faith written in the Holi/ Bible ? A. Many are there clearly expressed ; and some are only delivered by the living voice of the faithful, and are called apostolical traditions. " lb. p. XXX. '3 lb. p. I. 88 Comparative View of the Chap. II. quired '*. In the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventii, and twelfth Sessions, no article of Faith was taken into consideration. At length in the thirteenth Session, which was holden on the 11th of October 1551, a Decree was made on the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper y entitled, * Decretuni de sanctissimo Eu- charistiae sacramento.' In the preface to this Decree, the Church of Rome professes to deliver the doc- trine, "which the Catholic Church, instructed by " our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and by his Apostles, " and taught by the Holy Spirit daily suggesting " to them all truth, has always presci'ved, and niK "preserve to the end of the world '^" This de- scription exactly agrees with Tradition, as a Rule of Faith : but Scripture is not mentioned there, at least not by name. Nor is it omitted without reason. For the fourth and fifth chapters of that Decree relate to Transuhstantiation and the JVorshippi)ig of the Host. Now Transuhstantiation is there described to be, " the conversion of the whole substance of the " bread into the substance of the body of (Christ, and " of the whole substance of the wine into the sub- " stance of his blood '^" And the lirst Canon annexed to this Decree uses the term corpus et sanguis una cum anima, also the term tot us "• lb. p. li. " Doctrinam tradens, quam semper Catholica Ecclesia, ab ipso Jesu Cliristo Domino nostro et ejus Apostolis crudita, atque a Spiritu sancto, illi oninem vcritatcm indies suggerente, edocta, retinvit^ et ad finem usque saeculi conservabit. lb. p. Ixxi. " Hacc Synodus declarat, per consccrationem punis et vini, conversionem fieri totitts substantiae panis? in substantiam corporis Clnisti, Domini nostri, et tolius substantia vini in .»ubstantiani sanguinis ejus. lb. p. Ixxiv. Chap. II. Churches of England and Rojne. 29 Christus*^. Hence the Church of Rome, in con- formity with this notion, requires an actual worship- ing of the Host. For the lifth Chapter of this Decree is entitled not merely De veneratione huic sanctissimo sacraujento exhibenda, but De Cultu, et veneratione huic sanctissimo Sacramento exhibenda. Even that high degree of worship, which is paid to God himself, is pronounced to be the worship due " The first Canon, annexed to this Decree, is as follows. Si quis negaverit in sanctissimae Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri vere, realiter, et substantialiter, corpus et sanguinem una cum anima, et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ac proinde totum Christum ; sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo, ut in signo vel jigura, aut virtute, anathema sit. lb. p. Ixxvii. If any doubt re- mained about the real meaning of Transubstantiation, this Canon would remove it. The declaration made in the Decree itself, that the xnhole substance of the bread and wine was changed into Christ's body and blood, implies indeed o/'i^se/;^ that, after the consecration, there can remain nothing whatever of the bread and wine : or the change, cannot have been a total change, which is there positively asserted. But the canon says further, that what is there after consecration is totus Christus, and that Christ is not there merely under a sign or figure, (in signo vel Jigura.) But Bossuet, in his " Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic " Church." Ch. ix. where he explains the Doctrine of the Eucharist, speaks of the body and blood of Christ as being, *' xtirapped up, as it were, under another appearance ;^' he further ^ observes, (p. 61.) that " the sign, rvhich naturally represents a " thing, receives often the 7iame of that thing, because it is, as it " toere, the nature of it to excite that idea;" and he applies this ob- servation by adding, that " ivhen in establishing a sign, that of it- " self has no sort of relation to the thing signified,Jor instayice, a ** morsel of bread to signify the body of a man, it gets the name of " that thing ivithout any previous explanation, S;c." Now if, ac- cording to the Decree and the Canon, the change of substance is total, insomuch'that after consecration, the " "whole ChrisV be there, and not a representation of him by a sign or figure, the Exposition of Bossuet is hardly reconcileable with the Council of Trent. 30 Comparative View of the Chap. II. to the Host'*. And the reason for thus worshipping the Host is assigned in the following words, " We ** believe, that the very same God is there present, " whom the eternal Father sent into the world, and " said, Let all the angels xcorshlp him ''.'* The fourteenth Session relates to the doctrines oi Penance and Extretne Unction. Now for both of these doctrines appeal is made, as well to Scrip- ture, as to Tradition. But, we have here a proof of that tutelage, or rather vassalage, described at the end of the preceding Chapter. — Something Uke the Doctrine to be proved, or some supposed obscure intimation of it, is sought in the words of Scripture, And then, through the light of Tradition, this obscure intimation becomes at once a clear, and compre- hensive account of the doctrine to be proved. Thus, in favour of Extreme Unction appeal is made to the fifth Chapter of the Epistle of St. James, where something being said about anointing with oil in the name of the Lord, the Decree says, of the words used by St. James, " quibus verbis (ut ex Apostolic^ " traditione per manus accept^ Ecclesia didicit) *' docet materiam, formam, proprium viinistrum " et effectiim hujus salutaris Sacramenti **." Hence the oil is explained, as oil blessed by a Bishop; •' The words of the Decree itself are, " NuUus itaque dubi- *' tandi locus relinquitur, quin omnes Christi fideles, pro more in «' Caiholicii Ecclesia semper recepto, Latria cultum, qui vero '* Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo sacramento in veneratione ex- •♦ hibeant." lb. p. Ixxiiii. *' Ilium eundem Dcum prjEsentem in eo adesse crcdimus, quern Pater ucternus introducens in orbem terraruni, dicit, Et adorent eum omnes Angcli Dei. lb. p. Ixxiiii. ^ lb. p. xcvi. Chap. II. Churches of England and Rome. 31 the form to be used is explained to be, " Fer istam iinctionem,'' 8^c. — Now of this commentary thus imposed by Tradition, there is not a trace in the text: and we here see in what manner the text of Scripture is put to the torture, and made to s'peak whatever it may appear good, that Tradition should make it speak. — A similar mode is adopted to prove the doctrine of Penance. The word (j-irxi/oiXTt used by John the Baptist, in the third chapter of St. Matthew, which signifies simply Repent, is found by the light of Tradition to mean * Do Penance.' Hence iAirxvouTi is so t7'anslated in the Rhemish Testament, which is the English version used by the Romanists in this country; and this translation is accompanied by the following Note on the word ' Penance.' " Which word, according to " the use of the Scriptures and the Holi/ Fathers, *' does not only signify repentance and amendment ^' of life, but also punishing past sins, by fasting, and " such like penitential exercises'' Eleven more Sessions were holden by this Coun- cil, which continued till the year 1564, when its Decrees and Canons were published by Papal au^ thority. But, as the twenty-second, and the twenty- fifth, are those which chiefly relate to our present Inquiry (indeed some of them were niere decrees of prorogation) it will be sufijcient to notice the De- crees of the twenty-fifth, with a proper reference to the twenty- second. The Decrees passed in the twenty-fifth relate, to Purgatory, Indulgences, the Relics of Saints, and the Invocation of Saints. The Decree relating to Purgatory begins as follows. " Since the Catholic Church, instructed 39 Comparative View of the C 1 1 a p. 1 1 . " by the Holy Ghost out of the Sacred IFrititigs, " and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers, (antiqua " Pa^rw772traditione) has taught in its sacred councils, *' and lately in this oecumenical Council, that there " is a Purgatory and that the souls, detained there, *' are assisted by the prayers of the faithful, and " especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the Altar, " this holy Council commands the Bishops to do " their diligent endeavours, that the sound doctrine of " Purgatory, as handed down by the Holy Fathers^ ** and the Sacj^ed Councils be believed, retained, " taught, and every where preached by the faithful " in Christ ".^ Here it is worthy of remark, that, though the Decree begins with an appeal as well to Scriptui^e as to Tradition, yet, as if the framers of it were conscious, that Scripture afforded them no support, the word Scripture is omitted at the end of the sentence, where the sound doctrine of Purgatory is said to have been " handed down by the Holy *' Fathers and the sacred Councils." That the term " ancient tradition of the Fathers (antiqua Patrum " traditio)" relates only to the mode of conveyance, and that the doctrine is still supposed to be apos- tolical Tradition, appears from a comparison of it with a Decree relating to the sacrifice of the Mass, where the subject of Purgatory is likewise introduced. *' Cum catholica ecclesia, Spiritu sancto cdocta ex sacris Uteris et antiqua Patrum traditione, in sacris Conciliis et novissime in hac CECuraenica Synodo docuerit, Purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas fidcliuin suffragiis, potissimum Tcro acceptabili aJtaris sacrificio juvari, praecipit sancta Synodus Episcopis, ut sanam de Purgatorio doctrinam, a Sanctis Patribus et sacris Conciliis tra- ditam a Christi fidelibus credi, teneri, doccri, et ubique pra?di- cari diligenter studeant. lb. p. cci. ■• Chap. II. Churches of England and Rome^^Z^ For in this Decree it is said, of the Host, that it " is duly offered, according to the Tradition of the " Apostles (juxta Apostolorum traditionem,) not " only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and " other necessities of the livings but also for those " who are deceased in Christ, and are not yet fully " purged of their sins (nondum ad plenum pur- '^ gatis^'-.y This Decree about the sacrifice of the MasSj and its benefit to souls in Purgatory, is worthy of notice also in another respect. For no attempt even is made in it to couple the name of Scripture with the name of Tradition. In the Decree about Indulgences, there is again no attempt, to call in the aid of Scripture. It rests solely on the power of the Church " divinely handed dozen to it^' (divlnitus sibi traditd''^.) Indeed great caution is observed in the Decree about /«- dulgences: for it was the sale of these very In- dulgences, which had first excited the indignation of Luther, and had occasioned the Reformation in Germany. The Decree about Relics and Saints is entitled, * De invocatione, veneratione, et reliquiis Sanctorum^ €t sacris imaginibus.' Here likewise no attempt is made, to press the Scriptures into the service of ** Quate non solum pfo fidelium vivorum peccatis, poenis, sa- lisfactionibus, et aliis necessatibus, sed et pro defunctis in Christo, nondum ad plenum purgatis, rite, juxta APOSToLonuM tradi- tionem, offertuf. lb. p. cXLi. Likewise the Roman Catechism (p. 52. ed. 1572) explaining the doctrine of Purgatory says, De hujus quidem doctrinae veritate, quam et scripturarum testimo- niis, et apostolorum traditione confirmatam esse, sancta Concilia declarant, &c. And a marginal Note refers, not only to the Council of Florence, but to the twenty-fifth Session of the Council of Trent. "lb. p. ccxxxin. c 34 Comparative View of the C h a p. 1 1. this holy Synod ; for the members of it were C(W>- scious, that the Scriptures were agaifist them. Even Tradition appears to be abandoned, at least apostolical Tradition ; for appeal is made to the practice of the apostolical Church (apostolicse Ecclesiae iisum'-\) Yet in the Roman Missal (Missale Romanum) uhich was published by virtue of an order made in this very Session *\ there are many Collects which have no other foundation than this Decree, de iiwocatione Sanctorum. These Collects, so far from resting the hope of Salvation on the sol^ 97ierits and mediation of Christ, appeal not un- frequently to the mcj^its and inter cessio?i of the Saints. And lest a doubt should be entertained on this subject, I will quote an example, which shall be the Collect for St. Nicholas, whose memory is celebrated on the 6th of December. This Collect, according to the words of the Roman Missal in English, published in London a few years ago for the use of the Laity, is as follows, " O God, who " by innumerable miracles hast honoured blessed '^ Nicholas the Bishop, grant, we beseech tliee, that " by his merits and intercession we may be delivered " from eternal flames "^" And, lest it should be sup- posed, that the present members of the Church of Rome appeal less frequently, than their ancestors, to ** lb. p. ecu. *' lb. p. ccxxxiv. It is entitled, De Indice Librorum, Cate- ehismo, Breviario, ct Missal i. " See p. 527. of " The Roman Missal for the use of the Laity, containing tlie Masses appointed to be said throughout the year." Printed and published by P. Keating, 1806, 12mo. In the Missale Romanum (od. Antverpiae, 1G80, fol.) the Collect for St. Nicholas may be seen at p. 411. Chap. II. Churches of England and^ Rome. oS themeritsoiihe Saints, be it observed, that the Collects of this Roman Missal in English sometimes introduce as well meiits as intercession, where we do not find them in the original Missale Romaniim. A memo- rable example of this may be seen in the Collect for St. Patrick, the tutelar Saint of Ireland *". Such *^ In the Roman Missal in English, p. 562. the Collect ap- peals both to " the merits and intercession" of St. Patrick. In the Latin Missale Romanum, p. itoS, ed. 1680, there are three Col- lects for St. Patrick's day, which, as in the English Mass Book, is fixed for the 17th of March. The first, which is called Oratin, speaks of St. Patrick, but without either merits or intercession. In the second, which is called Secreta, the name of St. Patrick is not mentioned. It is again mentioned in the third Collect called Postcommunio, but merely with the words hitercedente beato Pa- tritio. In the Collect for St. George, the Patron of England, the Missale Romanum, (p. 467.) had already appealed as well to merits as to intercession : and of course we find them both in the English Mass Book, p. 570. Other examples of appeal, as well to the merits, as to the intercession of the Saints, may be seen in the same Mass Book, by consulting tlie Collects for St. Scholastica, St. Richard of Chichester, St. William archbishop of York, St. Fidelis, St. John a Facundo, St. Juliana, St. Thomas Becket, St. Jerome Emilian, St. Lawrence, and St. Andrew Avelline. The examples of appeal either to merit or intercession are without end. It is to be observed, that I am here speaking of the English Mass Book, or the Missal published in London in 1806 ; for the Collects in the Missale Romanum often vary from the corres- ponding Collects of the English Mass Book. Indeed the latter has not only Collects, but even Saints, which are not in the former. For instance, St. Scholastica, whose memory, according to the English Mass Book, is celebrated on the 10th of February, is left unnoticed in the Missale Romanum. At least the edition, which I have now before me, has no Collect for any Saint on the 10th of February. Now the Collect for Saint Scholastica runs thug, at p. 556. of the English Mass Book. " O God, who to recom- " mend to us innocence of life, wast pleased to let the. soul of "thy C 2 36 Comparative View of the Chap. 11. is the superstraction, which the Church of Rome has raised on a Decree of the Council of Trent, which itself is founded only on Tradition, and moreover on such Tradition, as the Council itself did not venture to pronounce apostolical, IV. No further proof then can be wanted, that to the Church of Rome the Scriptures are not the sole fountain of Christian Faith. And the only obser- vations, which it may be still necessary to make, are «uch, as relate to the authority of this Council. The Decrees, which relate to Discipline, have not in all countries been implicitly obeyed. In France, for in- stance, the rights of the Gallican Church have been opposed to the Decrees on Discipline. But the De- crees, relating to Doctrine, with which alone we are now concerned, and which alone therefore have been quoted in this Chapter, are universally received by those, who profess the Romish Faith. For the Decrees on doctrine declare, with as much authority, the tenets of the Church of Rome, as our thirty-niue Articles declare the tenets of the Church of Eng- land. Indeed they declare them with still greater authority. Whatever doubts (says Bellarinine) some persons may entertain of the personal infallibility of the Pope ; whatever doubts may be entertained about the authority of Councils, before their Decrees hare been confirmed by the Pope ; yet all Catholics (says Bellarmine) are agreed upon this point, that the •• thy blessed Virgin Scholastica ascend to Heaven in the shape *' of a Dove; grant, by her merits and prayers, that we may lead *' innocent lives here, and ascend to eternal joys hereafter." Chap. II. Churches of England and Rome. 37 Pope and a General Council together^ are absolutely infallible, when they make Decrees on faith and MORALS, pontificem cum general! concilio non posse errare, in condendis Jidei decretis, vel generalibus praeceptis inorum*^.) Now the Council of Trent was convoked by Papal authority ; three Legates of the Pope presided at the Council ; and it finally received the Conjirmation of the Pope, entitled Confirmatio Concilii, which is amteaed to its Decrees *'. Moreover, in every decree it is styled a General Council. It is styled also a " Council " lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit," and con- sequently a Council free from the possibility of error. There was nothing wanting therefore in this Council to give it the character of infallibility, according to the principles of the Church of Rome. And that Councils, thus general in their convocation and celebration, are really infallible, is no where more strongly enforced, than in the theological Lectures at the College of May- nooth. For in the treatise de Ecclesia Christi this proposition is asserted. Concilia, convocatione et celebratione generalia, sunt infallibilia ^'*. Nay even in regard to discipline, the authority of this Council, though resisted in France, is ?naintained in the College of Maynooth. For the concluding sentence of the Treatise de Ecclesid Christi pronounces, not only that the Council of Trent is in respect to DoC' trine a Compendium of all preceding Councils, but '* De Romano Pontifice, Lib. IV. cap. 2. •» See p. ccxxvii. '' De Ecclesia Christi, p. 166. 36 Comparative View of the Chap. II. that also in respect to Discipline it is to be received as a Manual of the Clergy ", Lastly, there is one respect, in which the Council of Trent is still more important, to our present Inquiry, than all former Councils united. It is the last General Council, assembled by the Church of Rome. Consequently, there is no pretext for the opinion, that its Decrees and Canons represent not the present tenets of that Church. Not that the pretext would be valid, even if a General Council had been since assembled. For, according to the prin- ciples of the Church of Rome, it is not in i\\Q power of one General Council, to revoke what a for- mer General Council has decreed on Faith and Morals. Infallibility itself cannot declare to be false, what infallibility has declared to be true. Having now ascertained, beyond the possibility qf doubt, the tenets of the Church of Rome on Scripture and Tradition, I shall proceed in the next Chapter to ascertain the tenets of the Church of England on the same subjects, by an appeal to our Jjiturgy, Articles^ and Homilies, ^' Itaque maximo in pretio illud Concilium habere debent omnes Clerici, cum ratione Dogmatum sit veluti omnium prae- cedentium Synodorum compendium, et ratione DiscipUna: me- rito dici possit Mannalc Sacerd9tum, vel corum qui Sacerdotio lunt initiandi. P. 412. Chap. III. Churches of England and Rome. 39 CHAP. III. APPEAL TO THE LITURGY, ARTICLES, AND HOMI- LIES, IN PROOF OF THE POSITION, THAT THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND REJECTS THE AUTHORITY OF TRADITION, AS A RULE OF FAITH, AND FOUNDS ITS DOCTRINES ON THE SOLE AUTHO- RITY OF SCRIPTURE. EFFECTS OF THAT RE- JECTION EXEMPLIFIED IN A REVIEW OF OUR DOCTRINAL ARTICLES. xVs the tenets of the Church of Rome, on Scripture and Tradition, were ascertained by an appeal to the Council of Trent, so the tenets of the Church of England, on the same subjects, must be determined by an appeal to our Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies. But the first, and principal appeal, must be made to the Articles ; for in the Articles of our religion we may of course expect a declaration of the authority, on which the Doctrines of our Church are founded. Now the sixth Article exactly corresponds with the Decree, which had been made a few years before, at the fourth Session of the Council of Trent, and of which a full account was given in the preceding Chapter. As the Council of Tretit, had declared in that Decree the authorities, by which it proposed to establish its Doctrines, so the Synod of London, declared in the sixth Article 40 Comparative View of the Chap. III. on what authority its Doctrines were founded. The Council of Trent had acknowledged txvo equal and independent authorities, as foundations of Doctrines. But our sixth article declares, that there is only one such authority. " Holy Scripture (says this " Article) containeth all things necessary to Sal- " vation, so that whatsoever is not read therein^ nor " may be proved thereby, is not to be required of " any man, that it should be believed as an article " of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to " salvation." This Article then directly contradicts the Decree in question. For, instead of describing the total Rule of Faith, as composed of two partial Rules of Faith, in Scripture, and Tradition ; instead of describing Tradition, or the unwritten Word, as equal in authority with Scripture, as the written Word; it gives the zvhole authority to Scripture alone. The sixth Article therefore rejects, entirely and absolutely, Tradition as a Rule of Faith, though the term Tradition is not used in it The twentieth and twenty-first Articles are 7io less decisive. The former declares, that '■ although the Church be " a witness and keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it " ought not to decree any lliing against the same, ** so besides the same ought it not to enforce ant/ " thing to be believed for necessity of salvation." The latter declares, that things ordained by General Councils " as necessary to Salvation have neither *' strength nor authority, unless it may be declared, " that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.'^ Nothing can be more pointed, than this Article, against such General Councils as the Council of Tr^nt, where inany things relating to faith were Chap. III. Churches of England and Rome. 41 ordained, of which it neither was nor could be de- clared, that they were taken out of Holy Scripture. If we examine the Homilies, we shall find, that Scripture is every where represented, as the sole fountain of Christian Faith. But it will be suffi- cient to quote the beginning of the fa^st Homily ; which I select for this very reason, that it shews, bow important it appeared to our Reformers, as soon as possible to free themselves from Tradition as a Rule of Faith. The first Homily then begins in the following manner ; " Unto a Christian man " there can be nothing either more necessary or " profitable, than the knowledge of Holy Scripture ; '^ forasmuch as i?i it is contained God's true JVord '^ setting forth his glory, and also man's duty. And " there is no truth nor doctrine, necessary for our "justification, and everlasting salvation, but that is, " or may be, drawn out of that fountain and well of " truth." Now, if we compare this passage of the first Homily with the Decree made at the fourth Session of the Council of Trent, we may almost conclude, that the author or authors of it had at least the substance of that Decree in contemplation. For in contradiction of the opinion, that * the Word of God' is composed of a written and an unxvritten Word, this Homily declares, that ' God's true Word,' must be sought in Scripture, or the written Word. Again, in contradiction of the opinion, that there are two fountains or wells of truth, this Homily declares, that there is no truth nor doctrine, neces- sary for our justification and everlasting salvation, but that is or may be, drawn from the fountain, or well, oi Scripture, 4S Comparative Kiew of the Chap. III. If further we examine our Liturgy, in reference to Scripture as the sole fountain of Faith, we shall find it every where in unison with tiie Articles and Homi- lies. Formal declarations on this subject we must not indeed expect in Collects and Prayers. It is suffi- cient, that they appeal to Scripture, and to Scrip- ture aloiie. Thus the Collect for the second Sunday in Advent begins, " Blessed Lord, who hast caused " all Holy Scriptures to be written for our learning :" and the Epistle, which is selected for that day, begins, " Whatsoever things were written aforetime " were written for our learning, that we through *' patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have ** hope." But it is unnecessary to offer any further proof of a proposition, which is sufficiently establish- ed by the Articles alone. n. Let us proceed then from causes to effects. And, as in the preceding Chapter we took a summary view of the Doctrines admitted by the Church of Rome, in consequence of its acknowledging Tra- dition as a Rule of Faith, let us now take a summary view of the Doctrines rejected by the Church of England, in consequence of its discarding Tradition as a Rule of Faith. These rejected Doctrines are stated in the fourteenth, the twenty-second, the twenty-fifth, the twenty-eighth, the thirtieth, and the thirty-first Articles. But beside the Doctrines which are stated in these Articles, and which are wholly rejected, there are Doctrines, which, though retained by name^ are changed in substance. The Doctrines of this description are those, which are Chap. III. Churches of England and Rome. 43 explained in the ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth Articles. It is true, that the live last mentioned Articles were not designed to oppose, the Church of Rome alone. But, if they oppose it at all, they must be examined with the rest, when we are taking a comparative view of the two Churches. The Articles therefore relating, both to i\\e former and to the latter kind, must be examined in due order. Of the former kind, the first which comes under review is the fourteenth Article. This Article relates to " Works of Supererogation ;" that is, to the supernumerary merits of the Saints, which con- stituted the treasure, out of which the Church of Rome was accustomed to draw its Indulgences for sin. For in these siipernumera?y merits, when properly distributed by the Churchy the sins of others were supposed to find a compensation. Now we have seen, that in the Decree about Indulgences, no appeal was made to Scripture. The twenty- second Article says, " The Romish Doctrine con- " cerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and " Adoration, as well of Images, as of Reliques, and " also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly *' invented, and grounded upon no warranty of " Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of " God." Here then we see, that these Doctrines are rejected, because they have no " warranty of Scripture," because they have no other foundation, Uian Tradition as a Rule of Faith. Now it has been shewn in the preceding Chapter, in what manner the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, relative to those Doctrines, appeal to the authority 44 Comparative Viexo of the Chap. III. of Tradition. — ^The twenty-fifth Article rejects y?vc out of the seven Sacraments received by the Church of Rome : and it appears from the preceding chapter, that the Canons which relate to the seven Sacra- ments, are prefaced by an appeal, as well to the Apostolic(E traditiones, as to the Scripturarum Doctrina. — In the twenty-eighth Article Transub- stantiation is rejected on this very ground, that it " cannot be proved by Holi/ IFrit ;" And we have seen, that the Decree of the Council of Trent, which relates in particular to Transubstantiation, is prefaced by an Appeal to Tradition, but by no appeal to Scripture. Further says this Article, " The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by " Christ's ordinance, reserved, carried about, lifted " up, or worshipped.'' Now the Decree of the Council of Trent, which commands the worshipping of the Host, lays no claim whatever to the authority oi Scripture. It appeals to Tradition, and Tradition alone. — ^The thirtieth Article declares, that " the Cup " of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay-people." Now this Article opposes what is maintained in a Decree, which passed at the txventy-Jirst Session : a Decree indeed not quoted in ihe preceding Chapter, because it no more appeals to Traditio7i, than it does to Scripture. In fact, it openly opposes Tradition, and rests the Doctrine of communicating under one kind, on the sole authority of the Church. " Holy " mother Church (says this Decree) acknowledges " its oxen authority in the administration of the •* Sacra7nents ; and although from the commence- *' nient of the Christian religion the use of it under •' both kinds was not uncommon^ yet that custom Chap. III. Churches of England and Rom€. 45 " having now widely changed through the progression " of time, the Church induced by grave and just " causes, has approved, and decreed as a laxv^ the " custom of communicating under one kind '." ' Quare agnoscens sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in ad- ministratione sacratnentorum auctoritatem, licet ab initio Chris- tiancB religionis non infrequens iitriusqve speciei ususfuissety tamen progressu temporis latissime jam mutata ilia consuetudine, gra- vibus et justis causis adducta, hanc consuetudinem sub altersL specie communicandi, approbavit, et pro lege habendara de- crevit. P. cxxx. As an excuse for refusing the Cup to the Laity, the Council of Trent, in the third Chapter of the Decree made at the twenty-first Session, added the following declara- tion. " Insuper declarat, quamvis Redemptos noster, ut antea *' dictum est, in suprema ilia ccena hoc Sacramentum in duabus *' speciehus instituerit, et Apostolis tradiderit, tamen fatendum " esse, etiam sub altera tantum specie totum atque integrum *' Christum verumque sacramentum sumi." P. cxxxi. Now the Decree, which had been made at the thirteenth Session, relative to Transubstantiation, had declared that the tohole sub- stance of the bread was changed into the substance of Christ's body^ and the lukole substance of the xvine into the substance of his blood {totius substantiae jaams in substantiam corporis Christi Domini no^ri, et totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus.) P. LxxiiH. According then to the Decree on Tran- substantiation, the bread becomes only the bodi/ of Christ ; for it is the wine which becomes his blood. And the expression, * totius substantiae,' places the inference beyond all doubt : for what is xvholli/ converted into one substance, cannot even in part be converted into another. According then to the Decree on Transubstantiation, to receive the Host, or the consecrated •wafer, is literally to receive the body of Christ ; and to receive the consecrated uiine is literally to receive his blood. But it is quite inconsistent with that Decree to say, that the receiving of the 'joqfer alone, or of the voine alone, is the receiving of both body and blood. When the Council of Trent therefore de- clared at the twenti/ -first Session, that the " •whole and entire « Christ" 46 Cotnparative View of the Chap. III. A more bare-faced opposition as well to Tradition as to Scripture cannot easily be found. — Further, says our thirty-first Article, in contimiatioji of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, " Tlie offering of Christ " once made is that perfect Redemption, Propitiation, " and Satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, " both original and actual : and there is none other " satisfaction for sin, but that alone.'' This Article is opposed to the Doctrine maintained in the Decree of the twenty-second Session, entitled, Doctrina de sacrijicio Missce, in which the daily sacrifice of the Mans is urged, under the name of the unbloody sacrifice, and as a sacrifice truly propitiatory (sacri- ficium vere propitiatorium) not only for the sins of the liv'mg, but also for the sins of the dead, who are not yet released ixovn purgatory . Now it was shewn in the preceding Chapter, that no attempt even was made to establish this Doctrine on the authority of Scripture, but that it was merely declared to be according to the tradition of the Apostles (juxta Apostolorum Traditionem.) By this review of the Doctrines, discarded by the Church of England, on the principle, that they are 7iot warranted by Scripture, and by the com- parison made at the same time with the correspond- ing Decrees of the Council of Trent, we discover, in those voy Decrees, a confirmation of the prin- ciple, to which the Church of England appeals. For in none of the Decrees relating to those Doctrines "Christ" (/o/7« atquiw'?j/rq;»T Christiis) was reci-ivt'd under onp kind (sub alteni tantuni specie) it nui^t surely have forgotten, under Pius the Fourth, what the thirhcnih Session hud de- creed under Julius the Thinl. C HAP. III. Churches of England and Rome. A/7 has the Council of Trent pretended, to rest on the sole authority of Scripture. Where appeal is made to Scripture, appeal is made also to Tradition. But in most of the Decrees relating to these Doctrines the appeal is to Tradition alone. And in one of them, the appeal is fieither to Scripture, nor to Tradition. A more remarkable coincidence, and at the same time a more satisfactory vindication of our Church cannot well be desired'. III. From the Doctrines, which were wholly rejectedy let us proceed to those, which were retained by name, but changed in substance. These are the Doctrines, which are explained in the five Articles, beginning with the ninth, and ending with the * This review serves likewise to shew the falsity of the assertion, that the Church of Rome establishes no Doctrines on the authority of Tradition alone. That Tradition is made to operate in conjunction with Scripture is certainly true : it is applied as a rule for the hiterpretation of Scripture : and we have already seen . in what manner the text of Scripture is brought under the guidance of Tradition as its comment. But the assertion that no Doctrines are established on the sole au- thority of Tradition is confuted by those very Decrees of the Council of Trent, which appeal to Tradition alone. Indeed Cardinal Bellarmine, whose treatise, ' On the Word of God,* contains the most accurate and the most extensive information on the subjects of Scripture and Tradition, acknowledges that there are so77ie things, relating even to faiths which are not contained in Scripture, and which consequently depend on the 8ole authority of Tradition. For having represented Scripture and Tradition as two partial Rules of Faith, he says of the former, <' Quia vero non est regula totalis, sed partialis, inde illi accidit, quod non omnia mensuret, et propterea aliquid sit de FIDE, quod in ipsa non continetur." De Verbo Dei, Lib. IV, cap. 12. The same assertion also is made in the Douay Cate- chism, See the preceding Chap. II. Note 11. u" 48 Comparative Viexv of the Chap. III. thirteenth. And it is the moi^e necessary to examine these five Articles, as, inconsequence of their having no direct allusion to the Church of Rome, they have been actually represented, as Articles in unison with that Church. Now in all of them there is some difference ; and in three of them the difference is material. But in considering those Articles with reference to the Church oi Rome, we must not over- look their other relations ; for, if we do, the whole purport of thera will not be understood. With this two-fold reference in contemplation let us examine them in the order, as they stand. The 7U72th Article, which relates to Original Sitiy is that which least differs from the Church of Rome, though a comparison of it with the Decree made at the fifth Session of the Council of Trent, will shew that the Article and the Decree are not in fl// respects alike. Indeed, it was not the Church of Rome only, that this Article was designed to oppose. For since it confines itself to the decla- ration, that "man is very far gone from original " righteousness and is of his own nature inclined to *' evil," it virtually opposes the error, that man is so far gone from original righteousness, as to have lost it altogether^ and to have been become a mere mass oi depravity : a notion, which, widely differing from that of humility J must tend to extirpate the feelings of morality. — But the tenth Article, relating to Free-will, is in open opposition to the Church of Rome. " The condition of man after the fall of " Adam (says this Article) is such, that he cannot ** turn, and prepare himself by his ozvn natural " strength and good works to faith and calling upon Chap. III. Churches of England and Rome. 4y " God. Wherefore we have no power to do good " works pleasant and acceptable to God without the " grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we " may haxie a good will and working imth us when " we have that good will." Now the fifth and sixth Canons, made at the sixth Session of the Council of Trent) declare, that raan*s Free-will was not so far lost by the fall of Adam. Here then is a direct opposition. We assert, that unassisted man can do nothing, which is pleasing to God : the Church of Rome asserts, that unassisted man may at least do some things pleasing to God. But the errors of the Church of Rome are not the sole errors, wliich this Article had in contemplation. For, as it asserts, on the one hand, that unassisted man cannot do what is pleasing to God, so it implies, on the other hand, that, with the divine assistance, he both may and ought to do so. Indeed it positively declares, that for this purpose the grace of God worketh ' with us;' and thereby signifies, that we ourselves must work out our salvation, the grace of God co-operating. It opposes therefore the error of ^ewym^ a joint- agency in the work of salvation ; an error, which, by leaving nothing to be done by 7nan on that account, must induce the belief, that his actions are things in- different, and that honesty, may, with safety, be discarded. The eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth Articles are decidedly at variance with the Doctrines of the Church of Rome. The thirteenth Article declares, that works, done before Justification, cannot possibly be good works, but that they have rather the nature of sin. Now this is positively denied D A 50 Comparative View of the Chap. III. in the seventh Canon made at the sixth Session of the Council of Trent. Again, our twelfth Article says, that good works follow after Justification; whereas according to the tenets of the Church of Rome there u)ust at least be some good works, which precede Justification. For the ninth Canon of the sixth Session asserts, that man is not justified by Faith alone That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome on this subject may be better understood, 1 will quote the very words of the Canon. " Si " quis dixerit, sold fide impium justificari, ita ut •' intelligat ?2/A// ^///W requiri, quod ad justificationis •* gratiam consequendam co-operetur, anathema sit." But since the Church of Rome, while it denies Justification by Faith only^ does not assert Justi- fication by Works only, and our eleventh Article is frequently so explained, as to make it include Works, the Romanists have hence taken occasion to represent our doctrine of Justification as virtually agreeing with their own. Now, since Justification by Faith is considered as a distinguishing feature of Protestantism, it is worth our while to consider, how far that representation is correct. And, as no ad- vantage is gained by evading the force of an argu- ment, I will first state it in all its forces and then- confute it. Says the Romanist to the Protestant, * When you contend, that we are at va?'ia?ice on the doctrine of Justification, either your distinctions are merely nominal, or you arc Solifidians and Antinomians. — No (says the Protestant) we are neither Solifidians nor Antinomians. For, when we say, that men are justified by Faith, wc do not mean a dead Faith, or Chap. III. Churches of England and Rome. 5 1 a Faith unproductive of good works. NoS< the Faith, which justifies, is a liveli/ Faith : and a lively. Faith is known by its works, as a tree is known by its fruiis. — Well then (says the Romanist) if your justifying Faith is k?iown by its Works, and con- sequently, without Works, is not a justifying Faith, then Works, by your own account, have a necessary connection with justifying Faith, and therefore with Justification itself. Further (says the Romanist) though we maintain the necessity of good works, for Justification, yet we as positively maintain the necessity of Faith. Since then (proceeds the Romanist) we assert, that Works are not justifying Works, unless they are done on a principle of Faith, while you assert, that Faith is not o. justifying Faith, unless that Faith is productive of works, does not Justification, in either case, result from the joint operation of Faith and Works ? Where then (con- cludes the Romanist) is the mighty difference be- tween us, even in this Article, which you are -iiccustomed to regard as a distinguishing feature of the Protestant cause ? Now this argument can be confuted by no other means, than by denying what was conceded about justifying Faith. For, as soon as we admit, \h2A jus- tifying Faith is a lively Faith, the inference above- deduced cannot possibly be evaded. Good works are the naturaliYxnts of Faith ; and therefore its necessary fruits, when Faith is hezomeo. lively orproductivel^aith. In this state, we have the same union of Faith and Works, which the Romanist requires for Justification. But it is a mistake, that, according to the tenets of our Church, justifying Faith is a lively Faith. D 2 52 Comparative View of the Chap. III. According to the tenets of our Church, it neither iSf nor can be, such. And it is the want of dis- tinction between justifying Faith and lively Faith, to which we may entirely ascribe the numerous incon- sistencies and contradictions, in which the Doctrine of Justification has, within these few years, been involved. When our twelfth Article asserts, that " a lively Faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned by thejO'wi^," the Article alludes to works, which, as there stated, " follow after Justi- fication," and consequently had no share in the causes of Justification. Indeed the thirteenth Article denies even the possibility of good works, before Justification. The Faith therefore? "which had previously justified^ cannot have been a lively oy productive Faith. For then it would have been a Faith, accompanied with good works, which before Justification, cannot even e.vist. The Doc- trine of Justification therefore as maintained by the Church oi England, is decidedly at variance with tiie Doctrine of the Church oiRome. If it be objected, that this vindication of the Church of England from the charge of similarity with the Church of Rome, exposes the former to the charge of Antinomianisu), I answer, that, although, Justification in the sense of our Articles, (the sense also of St. Paul) does not require for its attainment the performance of good works, they are indis- pensably necessary for the attainment oi final and everlasting Salvation. The distinction between Justification, and final or everlasting Salvation is declared in the very E.iordiuju of our first Homily ; where it is said, that Holy Scripture contains all flUiiiriii Chap. III. Churches of England and Rome. 53 necessary instruction "for our Justification and everlasting Salvation." Indeed our final and ever- lasting Salvation is our happiness in a future state, — in that state, where our Saviour himself has de- clared, that he will " reward every man according to his /Forks ^" But our Justifiication takes place in tfie pi^esent life ; it takes place at our admission to the Christian Covenant, for which notiiing more is required, than Repentance, whereby we forsake sin, and Faith, whereby we steadfastly believe the pro- mises of God. On forsaking sin therefore, we are justified by Faith, even before it is a lively Faith, or before it has produced works positively good. But though the Faith, which is sufficient to justify, is not a lively Faith, we must take care that it be- comes so, when we «re justified : or our justification will be of no avail. And we must guard against the fatal error, that justifying Faith leads of necessity to good works. Good works are indeed its natural fruits ; but they are not its necessary fruits, till FaitU is become a lively, ov productive Faith. And, as a tree may wither before it uas produced its fruits, so Faith may wither before it has produced good works. But if it does wither, and good works are not produced, the Faith, which had admitted us to the Christian Covenant, will fail of its intended purpose ; and we shall lose everlasting salvation. — In this manner is the Church of England vindicated, on the one hand, from the charge of Antinomianism, while it is shewn on the other hand to differ from the Church of Rome. ' Matth. xvi. 27. 54 Comparative Viexv of the Chap. III. Here then we may close the review of our doc- trinal Articles ; for they have been compared with the Doctrines of the Church of Rome both in reference to those, in which the ditference is totals and in reference to those, in which the difference is /?(zr/ia/. Thus we have clearly seen, not only that the two Churches have built their Faith upon different /bw;/- datmis, but also that the superstructures, respective- ly erected by them, have a difference corresponding with that of ihefoundations themselves ♦. But the question still remains to be examined, whether the Church of England had sufficient irason for rejecting Tradition as a Rule of Faith. For if it be truCy as the Romanists assert, that divine and apostolical Traditions, which are the ingredients of that Rule, do really e.vist, their authority cannot be disputed. This question therftfore, which is a very important one, shall be examined in the next Chapter. * A short statement of the principal Doctrines, in which the Church of Rome differs from the Church of England, may be seen in the Prqfessio Fidei CathoIiccE, secunduvi Concilium Tridentinunty ex Bulla Pii Papa IV. Chap. IV. Churches of Eugla7id and Rome. 55 CHAP. IV. ^EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION, WHETHER THE DIVINE AND APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS, WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO CONSTITUTE THE UNWRITTEN WORD OF GOD, OR TRADITION AS A RULE OF FAITH, HAVE A REAL, OR ONLY AN IMAGINARY EX- ISTENCE. PREVIOUS EXPLANATORY REMARKS. PROOF THAT THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THEIR ALLEGED EXISTENCE. THE REJECTION OF TRADITION, AS A RULE OF FAITH, THE VITAL PRINCIPLE OF THE REFORMATION. As we are now preparing to examine the ques- tion, whether the Church of England had sufficient reason for rejecting the authority ascribed by the Church of Rome to Tradition as a Rule of Faith, the examination itself will be rendered easier, and its results will be better understood, if we previously bring into one point of view whatever relates to the general question at issue between the two Churches. It is true, that the state of the question, on Scrip- ture and Tradition, as it respectively affects the two Churches, was explained in the first Chapter. But, as an appeal has been subsequently made to the Council of Trent on the one hand, and to our own 56 Comparative T^iew of the Chap. IV. Articles of Religion on the other, we are now enabled to take a more comprehensive view of the subject, and to state the case in all its bearings. We have seen, that the Church of Rome divides the Word of God into two parts ; the written Word, and the unwritten Word ; the former called ScripturCy the latter called Tradition. Hence Bellarmine divides his treatise De Verbo Dei into two portions, in the former of which he considers the Verbum Dei scriptum, and in the latter the Verbum Dei 7wn scriptum. Further, the xvhole Word of God is called the whole Rule of Faith. And as the whole Word of God, consists of two parts, the written Word, and the unwritten Word, or Scripture and Tradition, it follows, that Scripture and Tradition are considered, as two partial Rules of Faith, con- stituting the whole Rule of P'aith, or the whole Word of God. Hence Bellarmine says, Totalis Regula Fidei est verbum Dei, sive revelatio Dei EccleSi£e facta, qu^e dividitur in duas Re^ulas par- tiales, scRiPTURAM et traditionem'. Again, these two partial Rules of Faith, that is. Scripture or the written Word, and Tradition or the unwritten Word, are represented as two equal and independent Rules of Faith. Now the whole of this statement is confirmed by that official document, the Decree made at the fourth Session of the Council of Trent. For that Decree pronounces, that both the wi^itten Word and the unxcritten Word must be received ' See Chap. I. Note 12. In the Decree made at the fourth Session of the Council of Trent, the expressions, used to denote these two Rules of Faith, are Libri scripti, and Traditiones sine scripto. Chap. IV. Churches of England and Rome. 57 with sentiments of equal piety and reverence {pari pietatis afFectu ac reverentia.) And the equality ^ thus ascribed to them, is founded on the decla- ration, that the unwritten Word, no less than the written Word, proceeded either from the mouth of Christ, or from the dictates of the Holy Spirit *. We see then, that the unwritten Word, or Tradition^ is represented as deriving its authority from the same fountain of truth, with the written word, or Scripture. Consequently, when Scripture and Tra- dition are considered as two Rules of Faith, the latter Rule derives no part of its authority from the former Rule. Tradition therefore is considered as a Rule of Faith both equal to, and independent ofy Scripture. Further, as the whole Word of God, is divided into Scripture and Tradition, so Tradition itself is again divided into two parts; the one part containing doctrines, which had been delivered by Christ him- self, the other part containing doctrines, which had been taught by the Apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The doctrines of the first kind are called divine traditions; the doctrines of the second kind are called apostolical traditions '. Now this very subdivision of the unwritten Word is dis- tinctly marked in the Decree made at the fourth Session of the Council of Trent, though the dis- tinction is not there expressed by the use of those epithets. Again, it must be observed, that, when we speak See the Quotation in Chap. II. ^ote 8. See Chap. I. Note 5. 58 Comparative View of the Chap. IV. of the unwritten Word of God, or the unwritten Doctrine (as it is also called by Bellarmine,) we do not mean Doctrine, which is 7w where recorded, but Doctrine, which was not recorded by the authors of that Doctrine. Hence Bellarmine, in the second chapter of the fourth book of his treatise De Verbo Dei^ observes, Vocatur autem doctrina non script a^ non ea quae nusquam scripta est, sed qu£e non scripta est a primo auctore. Indeed the divine and the apostolical traditions, or doctrines coming either from Christ or from his Apostles, but left by the Apostles unrecorded, are supposed to have been recorded by the Fathers of the Church, and, in consequence of this mode of conveyance, have received the additional appellation of antiqua Pat rum traditio *. There is only one more observation necessary, in order to make the state of the present question fully understood. The Tradition^ which to the Church of Rome is a Rule of Faith, being composed of the divine and the apostolical traditions, these, and theser only, are the kinds of tradition, with which we are now concerned. Indeed this is clearly stated by the author of the treatise De Ecclesid Christi, who says, *' Quae nunc movetur controversia, est tantum de divinis et apostolicis traditionibus." Consequently, the charactejistic difference between the Churches of England and Rome consists in the admission of those divine and apostolical traditions on the part of the latter, and in the rejection of them, on the part ♦ See Chap. II. Note 4. with the text, preceding and foUo^r- ing that Note, Chap. IV. Churches of England and Rome. 59 of the former. Hence Bellarmine himself in ex- plaining the state of the present question says, that the Church of Rome, beside the written Word, receives an unxviitten Word, that is, (as he himself adds) the dimne and the apostolical traditions. But the Protestants, in opposition to the Church of Rome, believing (as Bellarmine continues in the same place) that all things, necessary for faith and MORALS, are contained in Scripture, contend that there is no necessity for an unwritten Word ^. The same characteristic difference between the Churches of England and Rome is declared also in the theo- logical Lectures at Maynooth : for the author of the treatise De Ecclesid Christi, immediately after the passage above-quoted, relative to the divine and apostolical traditions, adds, that these are the traditions, of which the authority is denied by Pro- testants ^. 5 See Chap. I. Note 11. ^ Immediately after the words, above-quoted in the text, is added, Tales existere, quae ipsius legis scriptse vim habent, neganf Protestantes, De Ecclesia Christi, p. 398. Since then the most distinguished among the Romish writers themselves declare, that the rejection of the authority, ascribed by the Church of Rome toTradition asaRuleof Faith, characterizes Protestants mge?zeraZ, one should hardly suppose that any writer, whether Romanist or Protestant, would now pretend, that this rejection does 7iot cha- racterize the Church of England. When we say that the re- jection of Tradition distinguishes the Church of England from the Church of Rome, it must be obvious to every one who considers the subject, that no other Tradition can be meant than the Tra- dition, which to the Church of Rome is a Rule of Faith. But to prevent, as much as possible, the confusion, which may arise from a misapprehension of terms, I have in general had the precaution to explain the term Tradition, when I have said it was rejected 60 Comparative View of the Chap. IV. When the Church of England therefore rejected Tradition as a Rule of Faith (a point fully proved in the preceding Chapter), it rejected what the Church of Rome calls the divine and the apostolical \.rdd\i\ons. The question oi fact then, or the question about what things are admitted by one Church and rejected by the other, being now clearly determined, the next thing is, to determine the question of opinioji. Which of the two Churches is, in this respect, mistaken? Has the Church of Rome sufficient evidence^ to prove, that the doctrines, called divine and apostolical traditions, really are of divine and apostolical origin? If satisfactory evidence can be produced, that they really a7X what they pretend to be, the Church of England ought not to have rejected them. For, in that case, they constitute a Rule of Faith, having the same divine origin with Scripture itself. In that case the authority claimed by the Church of Rome for Tradition, or the uti- written Word, as being equal to, and independent of, the authority of Scripture, or the xvritten Word, will have been shewn to rest on a solid foundation. The whole therefore depends on the resolution of this single question; Do those alleged divine and apostolical traditions exist, or not ? The atfirmative is of course maintained by the Romanists; whence the first and principal proposition advanced on this rejected by our Reformers. Thus in my thirteenth Lecture I said at p. 1 8, " When Tradition was discarded, as a Rule of Faith independent of the Bible, our Reformers of course maintained, &c." A similar explanation had been previously given at p. 11, when the subject of Tradition was first introduced. Nor has less care been taken in i\\Q j^raent Work, to prevent the confusion which often arises from a misapprehension of terms. Chap. IV. Churches of England Rome. 61 subject in the treatise De Ecdesid Christi is as follows, " Eiistunt traditiones divinas etapostolicae ;" whence the inference is immediately drawn, " quas licet non scripts, vim legis scriptct habent^." It is our business therefore to inquire, whether their existence has been satisfactorily established. II. The Inquiry, which we are about to institute, will be conducted in the most intelligible manner, by making Bossuefs Chapter upon Scripture and Tradition the basis of that Inquiry. And no Romanist can object to it, as Bossuet is universally holden by them in the highest estimation. In that Chapter, which is the seventeenth in his " Exposition of the Catholic Faith," says Bossuet, " Jesus " Christ having laid the foundation of his Church " by preaching, the unwritten Word was con- " sequently the first rule of Christianity ; and when " the writings of the New Testament were added to it, " its authority was not foifeited on that account ; " which make us receive, with equal veneration, all " that has been taught by the Apostles, whether in " writing, or by word of mouth ; which St. Paul " expressly recommends to the Thessalonians." Here no one will deny^ that Jesus Christ laid the foun- dation of his Church by preaching. Nor can we deny^ that the unwritten Word was the first Rule of Christianity. As nothing was recorded, at least not to our knowledge, during the life of our Saviour^ the doctrines, which he taught, were, during that ■^ lb. p. 399. 62 Compai^atwe View of the Chap. IV. period, so many divine traditions. And divine traditions they rejiiained, till tiiey were recorded in the Gospels. Again, as several years probably elapsed, after the Apostles had begun to teach under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, before they com- mitted their doctrines to writings the doctrines, which they taught during that period, were so many apostolical traditiojis. And apostolical tra- ditions they remained, till they were recorded in the apostolical epistles. We may safely admit therefore, that Tradition, or the unwritten Word, was the first Rule of Christianity. The argument proceeds, that " when the writings of the New " Testament were added to it, its authority was not ''^ forfeited on i\\2ii account." Now this argument, which is employed also by other writers on the same subject, is supposed to establish the authority, ascribed by the Church of Rome to the unwritten Word. For since it cannot be denied, that this was the first Rule of Christianity, the authority, which is acknowledged to have been then due to it, does not immediately appear to have been actually cattcelled by the circumstance, that another authority was placed by the side of it. Yet, if we examine the argument a little 7Wore closely, we shall find, that it carries with it its own confutation. For it secretly implies a point to be proved, and is therefore no- thing better than a petitio principii. When they say, that the writings of the New Testament were added to the unwritten Word, the very term ' added' implies such a difference between the things them- selves, as tacitly atfords a foundation for their future superstructure. On the suppoaitiun, lliat the zvhole Chap. IV. Churches of England and Rome. 63 of the then-unwritten Word was afterwards re- corded in the New Testament, there would be an absurdity in saying, that the New Testament was added to it. This very term therefore most artfully implies, that a part at least of God's Word, as delivered by Christ and his Apostles, was not re- corded in the New Testament. But this is a point, which the Romanists cannot take for granted^ when they are arguing with those, who invariably deny it. At the very dawn of the Reformation, both Luther and Melancthon rejected Tradition as a Rule of Faith, because they were convinced, that the whole of God's Word was contained in Scripture, or the written Word. But if the whole of God's Word is contained in Scripture, or the written Word, how happened it, (as is further argued) that St. Paul himself recommended apostolical traditions to the Thes- salonians? In a Note to the passage just quoted, we are referred by Bossuet to 2 Thessalonians ii. 15. where the Apostle (in the words namely of the Latin Vulgate) says, Tenete traditiones quas didi- cistis, sive per sermonem, sive per epistolam nos- tram ; and in the words of our own authorised version, " Hold the traditions^ w hich ye have been taught, whether by wo7'd, or our epistle.'' This passage the Romish writers in general consider as decisive: and accordingly, the Note to it in the modern editions of the Rhemish Testament, exclaims, " See here, that the umvritten traditions of the " Apostles are no less to be received, than their " Epistles.'' But let us inquire what St. Paul meant by these 64 Comparative View of the Chap. IV. traditions, as they are called. Did he intend to include in them any portion of those traditions, •which are ingredients in the Romish Rule of Faith? If it cannot be sheun that he didy the passage affords no proof whatever, that those things exist, of which it is designed to prove the existence. Now, if laying aside the words of a tramlation, and foregoing the advantage, which the term ' tradition ' affords by its very name, we examine the words of the original, we shall find that the term frapacfo(ng does not afford so easy a proof, as the Traditio of the Vulgate. When St. Paul said to the Thessalonians xparuTf T«f tru^xSUuq, the ex- pression was so comprehensive, that it might signify generally " observe the dii^ections which have been delivered to you." And these directions, delivered to them partly in writing, partly in person, might have related to discipline, as well as to doctrine. The Church of Thessalonica was founded by St. Paul himself, who of course therefore must be supposed to have give various directions, relative both to the administration of the community at large, and to the personal conduct of individual members. And that he really had in contemplation the personal conduct of individual members, when he used the term, which we translate by ' tradition,' is evident from the explanation, which he himself has given of this very term, after an interval of only seven •verses. For he there proceeds in the following words, " We command you, brethren, in the name of the " Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves " from every brother, that walketh disorderly, and '* not after the tradition, which ye received of w^-. Chap. IV. Churches of England and Rome, 65 " For yourselves know, how ye ought to follow us : " for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you ; " neither did we eat any man's bread for nought: but " wrought with labour and travail night and day, " that we might not be chargeable to any of you ; " not because we have not power, but to make our* " selves an ensample unto you, to follow us. For " even when we were with you, this we commanded " you, that if any would not work, neither should he " eaty From this explanation, given by the Apostle himself, we see that those Tra^aeJ'oVa?, or traditions, as they are translated, were nothing more, than directions^ which he gave to the Thessalonians, not to walk disorderly, not to eat the bread of othersy but to follow his example, and work for their own bread. As soon therefore as the whole passage is analysed, we discover, that it is altogether irrelevant and foreign to the purpose, for which the Romanists produce it. But nothing is more common with writers on the subject of Tradition, than to avail themselves of the multifarious senses, in which the term may be used. And since it may denote any thing whatever, which is delivered from one person to aaother; since therefore it may be applied as "variously, as the things delwered are various, the advocates of the Church of Rome can prove just whatever they please, by arguing that, as Tradition is Tradition, so Tradition in one sense is Tra- dition in another. In this manner the Jexvish Masora might serve as an argument for Romish Tradition. The Term ' Masora' zV^e//' denotes Tra- dition, and it contains, among other things, ^various readings to the Hebrew Bible, which, accoi;ding to E 66 Comparatke View of the Chap. IV. the account of the Jews, had been transmitted orally throuiih many generations, before they were com- mitted to writing. If then we set aside all distinction, in respect to the quality of the things delivered, we may obtain, even from the Masora, as good an argument for Romish Tradition, as the Romanists obtain from the Second Epistle totheThessalonians. Let us suppose however, that, when the Apostle used the term -ira.^a.Soverii earliest, which he composed. And who will undertake to prove, that Doctrines, unrecorded in the two comparatively short Epistles to the Thessa- lonians, were not afterwards recorded, either in the Epistle to the Romans, or in the Epistles to the Corinthians, or in the Epistles to the Ephesians, the Colossians, the Philippians, or the Epistles to Timothy and Titus ? Now the bare possibiUtij, that they were afterwards recorded, is sutlicicnt to tlefcat the object of the appeal. For the present existence of apostolical traditions must be. jjroved, as well as their past existence; or the claims of the Church of Rome will not be established. And, for that pur- pose, it is necessary to shew, not merely that St. Paul Chap. IV. Churches of England and Home. 67 alluded to Doctrines, unrecorded when he wrote to the Thessalonians, but that he alluded to Doctrines left unrecorded in his subsequent Epistles. For, if he recorded them any where, they are not at present apostolical traditions. And what they "were^ when he wrote to the Thessalonians, is a question foreign to the purpose. There is also another possibility, which is sufficient to destroy the inference. They may have been afterwards recorded in other Apos- tolical Epistles; or they may have been Doctrines, taught by Christ himself, and recorded in the Gospels. In either case they are at present con- stituent parts of the written Word ; and consequently they afford no argument for the preseiit existence of an unwritten Word. Having shewn, in what manner the bare possi- bility that Doctrines, unrecorded at one time, were recorded at another, is sufficient to defeat the appeal in question, we may proceed to consider the extreme impi'obability, that an all-wise Providence, imparting a new Revelation to mankind, would suffer any Doctrine, or Article of Faith, to be transmitted to posterity by so precarious a vehicle, as that of Oral Tradition. It is not with Doctrines, as it is with Ceremonies, or even with the usages of Civil Law. The daily practice of the Church, or the daily practice of Courts of Justice, may preserve un- altered, through a succession of ages, the forms, which are apparent to the e.vternal senses. But Articles of Faith, which are objects only of the inward sense, must unavoidably, when transmitted only from mouth to mouth, undergo, in a very shoi^t period, material alterations. It is therefore in the E 52 68 Comparative View of the Chap. IV. highest degree improbable, that any Doctrine, coming from Christ and hia Apostles, should have been left unrecorded in the Nexv Testament, and confided to the future record of the Fathers. But, were the existence of these apostolical traditions* subject to no doubt, they must be uselessto uSy unless we have some means of knowing them when we find them. Now, if we were searching for a few single pearls, dispersed in a vast heap of rubbish, the task, though arduous, would not be desperate. For, if perchance we found a place, where one of them lay buried, the /on;?, and the colour of the object, which we were seeking, would enable us to distinguish it from the surrounding mass. But when we are searching for apostolical traditions in the Works of the Fathers, there is nothing in those traditions, which particularly inarks their apostolical origin. And when we take into consideration the magnitude of the mass, in which we have to search, it is sutiicient to deter us from even making the attempt. For if Ave select only one Greek Father, and one Latin Father, Chry- sostom and Jerom, their works alone, in their best editions, amount io four and twenty folio volumes. But, (say the Romanists) the Fathers themselves have afforded a criterion, by which apostolical tra- ditions may be known. Now it cannot be denied, • As the term ' apostolical,' is used frequently as a generic term to include the Doctrines received by the Apostles, as well from Chribt, as from the Holy Spirit, Bossuct himself speaks in general terms of traditions coming from the Apostles ; and the term apostolical is here and iu the following paragraplis taken in the same extensive sense. Chap. IV. Churches of England and Rome, 69 that the Fathers have, in various passages, spoken of traditions, as coming from the Apostles. These passages were, soon after the Reformation, collected with great industry : they were published all together in an early edition of the Rhemish Testament ; and they form a treasure, from which examples have been quoted ever since. But if we carefully e.vamine these passages, we shall find, that they do not always relate to Doctrines, with which alone we are at present con- cerned. Some of them are mere allusions to customs or ceremonies, supposed to have been observed since the time of the Apostles. And the passages, which do relate to Doctrines, relate, for the most part, to Doctrines contained in the New Testament^. In such cases therefore the Fathers spake of Tra- dition, not in the confined sense of an unwritten Doctrine, but in its most extensive sense, which includes, as well written, as unwritten Doctrines. Indeed Bellarmine himself says, Nomen Traditionis generate est, et signlficat omnem doctrinam, sive scriptam, sive non scriptam '°. On the other hand, if among the Doctrines, so quoted, there be any which are not contained in the New Testament, the mere circumstance, that they were called apostolical traditions, shews nothing more, than, that the writer, who quoted them, supposed them to be such. But, when we are concerned with the proof of a fact, it is not mere opinion, which can satisfy us. We must have evidence of its truth; and no one • See Dr. Fulke's edition of the Rhemish Testament, with remarks on the Rhemish Annotators, especially in the secQiid Epistle to the Thessalonians. •° De Verbo Dei, Lib. IV. cap. 2. • 70 Comparative View of the Chap. IV. can bear evidence of what was said or done by an- other, unless what was said or done has come within his owfi obse?'vatio?i. He gives merely a report, when he states what was said by another, a hundred years before he himself was born. And if the saying, thus reported, has been trusted, during all that period, to or«/ tradition, the hundreds of mouths, through which it had passed, before it came to the ears of the reporter, must have so changed it, that the original saying, and the reported saying would be two different things. But what is the interval of one century, or even of tzco centuries in comparison of that interval, which elapsed between the apostolic age, and the age or ages, when such Doctrines were first recorded, as those of Transubstantiation, the Worshipping of the Host, the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, the Communion under one kind, the grant of Indulgences, the praying of souls out of Purgatory, the Invocation of Saints, and the re- mission of sin through their intercession and merits ? Were tlicsc Doctrines recorded by any Father of the four first centuries ? And as for writers of the eighth, ninth, and tenth, centuries, they had no other sources of information, than such as are equally open to writers of the present day. When we descend therefore to particulars, and examine severally the Doctrines, which the Church of 7?owe has dignified with the appellation of apos- tolical traditions, we perceive at once, that the pre- tensions of that Church are devoid of foundation. In- deed Bossuut himscU was aware of the conseciuences resulting from minute examination. He wisely tlicrefore deals in generals. And knowing the Chap. IV. Churches of England and Rome. 71 impracticability oitracingih^ traditions of his Church to the place from which they are said to come, he has ingeniously converted the very uncertainty of their origin, into an argument for their apostolical origin. He says, " A most certain mark, that " a Doctrine comes from the Apostles, is, when all " Christian Churches embrace it, without its being " in the power of any one to shew where it had " a begimiing." Now of the Doctrines, recorded in the New Testament, we knoiv the beginning : and this very knowledge is a sufficient reason for our receixing them. But when Bossuet says of the apostolical traditions, that it is not in the power of any one to shew, where they had a beginning, our very ignorance about where they had a beginning, is a sufficient reason for our refusing to receive them, as Doctrines having an apostolical beginning. Nor can this uncertainty be removed by his other cri- terion, namely, that " all Christian Churches em- brace''' them : for the argument is here applied to the reception of those very things, v/hich all PrO' testant Churches, with exception, i^eject. When Bossuet, in the next sentence, argues to the im- possibility, " that a doctrine, received from the "very " commencement of the Ciiurch, could ever come " from any other source, than from that of the " Apostles," he varies from the argument, which he had founded on the uncertainty of origin. But it was merely for the sake of giving some colour to that argument, that the additional observation was made about Doctrines received from the very com- mencement of Christianity. For the learned Bishop of Meaux was certainly not ignorant, that the 72 Comparative View of the Chap. IV. Council of Trent had, in the Doctrine of the Eucharist^ decreed as a law, what the Council itself acknowledged to be in opposition to the Doc- trine received from the cominencement of Chris- tianity ". And, if he had applied his observation to various other Doctrines, of which the Council of Trent made no such acknowledgement, but for which it pretended to have the authority of apos- toHcal Tradition, he would have been utterly unable to trace such Doctrines to the Apostles. Even were it possible, to trace them to the Apostolic age^ there •would still be wanting the additional proof, that they came from the Apostles. We know, that heresies crept into the Church even in their days; and that the apostolical Epistles were designed, in many places, to point out such heresies, and to declare what was the genuine apostolical Doctrine. If then those Doctrines, for which there is no foundation in Scripture, could be traced to the very age of the Apostles, the only alteration in the inference would respect the date of the heresy. When Bossuet tticreforc concludes, by commending the endeavours of tiie Church of Rome to collect all that the Fathers have left us, and to preserve " the deposit of Ira- dition as carefully, as that of the Scriptures,'' he commends the preservation of a deposit, on which there is 710 reliance. But in the theological Lectures at Maynooth we find another criterion, by which apostolical traditions may be known. This criterion is the unaniinity of the Fathers in regard to any particular doctrine. The proposition is delivered in the follow- " See Chap. III. Note 1. Chap. IV Churches of England and Rome. 73 ing words, " Unanimis Patrum, ad doctrinam " aliquam asserendam, consensio certissimum est " veritatis argumentum"." But unfortunately this criterion is wholly inapplicable to the cases, where the application is wanted. For though the Fathers, in general, maintain the Doctrines, which the Church of England has in common with the Church of Rome, such for instance as the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Atonement, yet the Doctrines, in which the Church of England differs from the Church of Rome, are precisely the doctrines, in which the Fathers are not unanimous. Indeed the Doctrines, maintained by the early Fathers, are quite at "variance with the Doctrines, which distinguish the Church of Rome. There is one more argument for the apostolical traditions, which I have reserved for the last, be- cause, on the principles of the Church of Ro7ne, it is quite unanswerable. We are told, that not merely the Works of the Fathers, but that the Decrees of Goieral Councils form a repository of these traditions. Indeed the theological Lectures at Maynooth place this repository in the foremost rank. We are not referred to the Works of the Fathers in the first instance, and to the Decrees of Councils in the second instance, as having borroxved from the Works of the Fathers. The Decrees of Councils there iakQ precedence. For the repositories of Tradition are thus stated in thr following sentence. " Traditio?iis nomine intelligitur doctrina, in libris " canonicis non scripta, quamvis in Conciliorum " De Ecclesia Christi, p. 416. 74 Comparative View of the Chap. IV. canonibus, et sanctorum Patrum operibus legatur'^" This precedence is attended with incalculable ad- vantage. For since General Councils are declared in the same Lectures to be absolutely infallible in points of faith '*, it follows of course, that whatever Doctrine such authority has pronounced an apos- tolical tradition, must be received as apostolical. But it is quite superfluous for an infallible Council, acting under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, to take the trouble of searching for apostolical traditions in the Works of the Fathers. The easiest, and indeed the most consistent mode would be, to use in every Decree the language which was holden by the Council of Trent in a Decree on the Eucharist, and to proclaim that, " Holy mother Church ac- knowledges its own authority '^" But as no Pro- testant can ascribe infallibility to any Church, and least of all to a Church, which has exhibited so many proofs oi error ^ the admission of Doctrines by the Council of Trent, under the name of apostolical traditions, must be considered as insufficient evi- dence, that the doctrines, so received, had an apostolical origin. Upon the whole then, we may safely infer, that there is no foundation whatever for the alleged existence of those divine and apostolical traditions, which are made to constitute an unwritten Word, or Tradition as a Rule of Faith, The Church of England therefore acted wisely in rejecting that Rule. And when we further consider the con- " P. 398. «* P. 166. »s See Chap. III. Note 1. Chap. IV. Churches of England Rome, 75 sequences of that rejection, when Ave consider the load of superstition, from which we were freed by the means of that rejection, we may well assert, that the rejection of Tradition, as a Rule of Faith, was the vital principle of the Reformation. Comparative View of the Chap. V, CHAP. V. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHURCHES OF ENGLAND AND ROME IN RESPECT TO THE CANON OP SCRIPTURE. THE LATTER ADMITS, AS CANO- NICAL, VARIOUS BOOKS AND PARTS OF BOOKS, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, WHICH THE FORMER CONSIDERS AS APOCRYPHAL. HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, AS CON- TAINED IN THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE VULGATE. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, WHICH WAS SANCTIONED BY OUR SAVIOUR, THE SOLE CANON TO BE RECEIVED BY CHRISTIANS. PROOF, THAT THIS CANON, IS THE CANON OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, ADOPTED BY THE CHURCH OF ROME, RECEIVED THE SANCTION, NEITHER OF CHRIST, NOR OF HIS APOSTLES. 1 H E fundamental difference between the Churches of England and Rome, in respect to D'a- dition as a Rule of Faith, having been fully ex- plained, let us now consider the difference between them, in respect to Scripture itself. And, as Scrip- ture is to both Churches a foundation of Faith, though not the sole foundation to the Church of Rome, it necessarily follows, that whatever difference subsists between them, in regard to the Canon of vicripture, is again ajundamcntal difference. Chap V. Churches of England and Rome, 77 When it is said that the Bible is a common authority to Christians of every denomination, the assertion must be understood with certain limitations : for not e'oery part of the Bible, which is received by one Church, is received by another. But, since we are at present concerned only with the Churches of England and Rome, it is unnecessary to inquire into the Canon, either of the Greek Church, or of the Syrian Church, or of the Armenian Church, or any other Church, or Churches, than those, to which the inquiry now relates. And, as we com- pared our sixth Article with the fourth Session of the Council of Trent, to ascertain the difference on the subject of Tradition, we must again compare them, to determine the difference between the two Churches, in regard to the Canon of Sci^ipture. Our sixth Article does not enumerate the books, of which the New Testament is composed ; but says only, " All the books of the New Testament, as " they are commonly received, we do receive, and " account them canonical^ Now the books of the New Testament, which are commonly received, are the books, which are printed, not only in our authorised version, butj also in the editions of the Greek Testament. The same books also constitute the New Testament, as printed in the Latin Vulgate ; and they are enumerated in the Decree, made at the fourth Session of the Council of Trent, in which they are called, lihri sacri et canonici. In respect therefore to the books which constitute the New- Testament, that is, in respect to the Canon of the New Testament, the Churches of England and Rome asrce. 78 Comparative View of the Chap. V. But there is a material difference between them in regard to the Canon of the Old Testament, The canonical books of the Old Testament are, according to the sixth Article, The five books of Moses ; the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth ; the two books of Samuel, the two of Kings, and the two of Chronicles ; the first and second books of Esdras, commonly called Ezra, and Nehemiah; the books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solo- mon's Song ; the four greater, and twelve lesser prophets. These are the only books of the Old Testament, which the Church of England receives as canonical, or, to which it appeals f^r the purpose of establishing " any Doctrine.'' The otJier books, which are comprehended under the general name of Apocrypha, the Church of England does not apply (as is stated in the same Article) " to establish any Doctrine.'' These are, the third and fourth books of Esdras, or the first and second apocryphal books of Esdras ; the book of Tobias (or Tobitj : the book of Judith ; the rest of the book of Esther ; the book of Wisdom, of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or Ecclc- siasticus, and of Baruch ; the Song of the three Children, the Story of Susanna, of Bel and tlie Dragon, and the Prayer of Manasses ; the first book of Maccabees, and the second book of Maccabees. Now these books, and parts of books, wliich we not only separate from the other books of the Old Testament, but altogether omit in the small editions of the Bible, are received as sacred and canonicai by llie Ciiurch of Rome, with the exception of the tliird and fourth books of Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses. C H A p. V. Churches of England and Rome. 79 That the Church of Rome, Avith the aforesaid exceptions, receives those books, and parts of books, as sacred and canonical, appears from the catalogue, which is given in the Decree made at the fourth Session of the Council of Trent'. For in that catalogue the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiaslicus, Baruch, and the first and second books of Maccabees are mentioned 3j/ w^'we, in addition to those, which are in the Canon of both Churches. And, though this Decree does not ' Immediately after the words, pari pietatis qffectu ac reve- rentia suscipit et veneratur, which close the quotation to Note 8, to the second Chapter, the Decree proceeds as follows: " Sacro- " rum vero libroruraindicem huic Decreto adscribendum censuit; " ne cui dubitatio suboriri possit, quinam sint, qui ab ipsa " Synodo suscipiuntur. Sunt vero infrascripti. Testamenti " Veteris, quinque Moysi, id est. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, *' Numeri, Deuteronomium, Josue, Judicum, Ruth, quatuor Re- " gum, quo Paralipomenon, Esdrae primus, et secundus qui " dicitur Neemias, Thobias, Judith, Hester, Job, Psalterium •' Davidicum centum quinquaginta psalmorum. Parabolas, Eccle- " siastes, Canticum canticorum, Sapientia, Ecclesiaslicus, Isaias, " Hieremias cum Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, duodecira prophetae " minores, id est, Osea, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, " Naum, Abacuch, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias, " duo Machabceorum,primuset secundus. Testamenti Novi quatuor *' Evangelia, secundum Matthasum, Marcum, Lucam et Joan- " nem. Actus ApostoIorumaLuca evangelista conscripti. Qua- •' tuordecim Epistolae Pauli Apostoli, ad Romanos, duee ad Co- " rinthios, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colos- " senses, duae ad Thessalonicenses, duas ad Timotlieum, ad " Titum, ad Philemonem, ad Hebraeos, Petri Apostoli duee, Jo- " annis Apostoli tres, Jacobi Apostoli una, Judae Apostoli una, " et Apocalypsis Joannis Apostoli. Si quis autem libros ipsos in. " teg7-os, cum ortmikis suis partibus, prout in Ecclesia Catholica " legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgatd latina editione habentuj; " pro sACRis et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones prae- " dictas sciens et prudens contempserit, anathema sit." 80 Comparatne Viewofthe Chap. V. mention by na7ne, either that part of Esther, which is placed in our Apocrypha, or the Song of the three Children, or the Story of Susanna, or that of Bel and the Dragon, yet it certainly includes those portions of our Apocrypha. For that part of Esther, which we place in our Apocrypha, is, according to the Latin Vulgate, (which the Council of Trent, in the very same Session declared the authentic edition of the Scriptures*) a constituent part of the canonical book of Esther. And the other three portions, are according to the same Vulgate, constituent parts of the book of Daniel. But to remove all doubt, whether in the books of Esther and Daniel, the apocryphal parts of them were meant to be included, the Council of Trent has declared in the very same Decree, that it receives the books of the Old Testa- ment eiUire xvith all their parts, as they are con- tained in the Latin Vulgate (" Libros ipsos integros, " cum omnibus suis partibuSy prout in ecclesi^ " catholica legi consueverunt, et in vetcri rul^^atd " latind editione habentur.") The whole therefore of our Apocrypha, with the exception of the third, and fourth books of Esdrub, and the Prayer of JManasses, * Insuper eadcm sacrosancta Synodusconsulerans,noH parum utilitatis accedere posse Ecclesiaj Dei, si e.\ omnibus Latiuis editionibus, quaecircuniteruntur, sacrorum librorum quacnam pro AUTHENTicA liabcnda sit, innotescat, statuit et dcclarat, ut hxc ipsa veius et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa Ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disptitationitus, prccdicationibus, ct exposi(ionidt(s pro avtuehtic a habeatur; et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis pra;te\tu audcat vel praisuuiat. P. XXI. In this manner did the Council of Trent elevate zniere translation to the rank of the original Scriptures. Indeed Uie ^ebrevo Bible, the true original of the Old Testament, would not have suited i\iQ purpose of that Council. Cha p. V. Churches of England and Rome. 8 1 the Council of Trent has placed among the sacred and canonical writings of the Old Testament. L.deed it not only includes them under the general appella- tion of books sacred and canonical, but it further declares^ that all their canonical books are to be received with sentiments of equal piety and reverence (j&an pietatis affectu ac reverentii.) It is true, that many of the Romish writers, among others Bellarmine himself, have divided the books of the Old Testament into two separate classes, of which the^r*^ class contains the books, which both Churches receive as canonical, while the books, received as canonical by the Church of Rome, and' not by the Church of Englatid, are referred to a second class. It is further true, that some writers have given to the books of the former class the title of libri prot o-cdiuomci, and to the books of the latter class, the title of libri deutero-CAnomQA. Hence it has been inferred, that they considered the books of the latter class, a» canonical indeed, but as canonical in an inferior degree. Now, if a book considered by the Church of England as apocryphal, is received by the Church of Rome as being in any respect canonical, the two Churches are still at variance. But it is really absurd to talk of a medium between canonical and uncanonical, or of degi^ees of canonicity. Let us ask, what the Church of England understands by a canonical book. This question is answered in the sixth Article. It is a book, to which we may appeal in confirmation of Doctrines, It belongs to the Canon, or to tlie Rule of Faith. And the very same explanation is given in the corresponding Decree of the Council of Trent, namely, that which passed at 82 Comparative View of the Chap. V. the fourth Session. For after an enumeration of the books called sacred and canonical (sacri et canonici) the Decree concludes with the obseivation, that the authorities above-stated are those, which the Council proposes to use in confirmation of Doctrines (in con- firmandis dogmatibus.) Every book therefore must either be^ or 7Wt be, acknowledged as a M'ork of authority for the establishment of Doctrines. Be- tween its absolute rejection, and its absolute admission there is no medium. When the question relates to the establishment of Doctrines, a book must have full authority for that purpose, or its authority is worth nothing. And hence the Council of Trent very consistently ascribed equal authority to them all. No writer therefore, belonging to the Church of Rome, could represent their authority as unequal, "without impugning that Decree of the Council of Trent. We might be certain then, without further examination, that the inference deduced from the terms />ro^o-canonicus, and deutero-CMiOxncws was devoid of foundation. Ijut that nothing may be omitted on a subject of such importance, let us examine what the Romish writers themselves have said in regard to this two- fold division. And for this purpose let us again have recourse to Bellarmine, who is far the most metho- dical pnd comprehensive, on this, as on all other subjects of Romish Theology. In {he frst Book of his tretitise on * The Word of God, where lie examines the dift'ercnce between the Canon of tlic Protestants and the Canon of the Church of Rome, be divide?, in his fourth Chapter, the books ot the Old Testament into two classes. In Ihc Jirst dao) Chap. V. Churches of England and RomH^ ' • 85 he places those books, which are universally allowed to be canonical, or " of whose authority (in the " words of our sixth Article) there was never any " doubt in the Church." In the second class he places those books of the Old Testament, which are received as canonical by the Church of Rome, but not received as such by Protestants \ It is likewise true, that Bellarmine calls the books of the former class libri primi ordinis, and the books of the latter /class libri secundi ordinis. But it is not true, that the terms primus ordo, and secundus ordo, here imply an inequality, in respect to their canonical authority. The division was made solely with a view to perspicuity ; it was made for the sole pur- pose of distinguishing those books, which were the subjects of controversy, from those, on which all parties were agreed. And so far was Bellarmine from making any thing like concession, in regard to the books of the second class, that his very object is to defend their canonical authority in opposition to the Protestants. He examines the authority of the disputed books, one after the other ; and he con- cludes by pronouncing them truly canonical. For instance, in his ninth Chapter, speaking of those parts of Daniel, which we place in the Apocrypha (namely the Song of the three Children, the Story of Susanna, and that of Bel and the Dragon) he says, " it is certain that all these parts of Daniel are truly " canotiical (certum est has omnes partes Danielis " t7ere esse canonicas." And in his tenth Chapter, 3 He has also a third Class, which it is unnecessary to no- tice here, because it includes such books as the Church of Rome itself rejects. F 2 84 Comparative View of the Chap. V. speaking of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of the Maccabees, he not only says, that the Church of Rome holds them to be sacred and canonical (pro sacris et canonicis habet,) but he adds, that they are so sacred as to be of infallible truth (hos libros ita esse sacros, ut sint infalUbilis veritatis.) A stronger expression he could not have used, if he had been speaking of Moses and the Prophets. There is no foundation then whatever for the opinion, that, when the books, received as canonical by the Church of Rome, are divided into two classes, the division implies an inferiority of the latter to the former. Nor must we forget, that, as this division is made in controversy with Protestants, for the pur- pose only of distinguishing the subjects of con- troversy, so the Church of Rome, on all other occasiotis has carefully abstained from making any distinction whatever. Though the Apocrypha or books of the second class are, in Protestant Bibles, detached from the books of the first class, and placed together by themselves, yet no such separation is cither made, or alloxved to be made, in Bibles, which arc used by members of the Church of Rome. Nor is any such separation observable in that catalogue of canonical writings, which is officially given by the Council of Trent. For the books belonging to one class are there intcruiLvcd w itli the books belonging to the other ; so that all distinction between them is utterly done away*'. TIjc books of Tobit and Judith arc there named between the books of Nchemiah and * See the preceding Note 1. Chap. V. Churches of England and Rome. 85 Esther; the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, between Solomoti's Song, and Isaiah; Baruch is annexed to Jeremiah ; nor is any part of our Apo- crypha enumerated after the books, which we receive as canonical, except the two books of Maccabees, which have the last place assigned to them for no other reason, than because they record events of so much later date. If we examine the editions of the Latin Vulgate, which have been printed since the time of the Council of Trent, and printed by Papal authority, we shall find an arrangement, which perfectly accords with the above-named Cata- logue. Nor do the preceding editions differ in any other respect, than, that many, if not most, of them, contain also the third and fourth books of Esdras, with the Prayer of Manasses ^. The Douay translation of the Old Testament has again the same arrangement, as the modern editions of the Latin Vulgate, from which indeed (and not from the Hebrew) the translation was made^. This translation was published by the English College at Douay in 1609; and with the Rhemish translation of the New Testament, first printed in 1582, it forms the English Bible, which ' The third and fourth books of Esdras, with the prayer of Manasses, are printed also by Sabatier in his Biblia Sacra, pub- lished at Rheims in 1743, in three volumes folio. But, in con- sequence of their rejection by the Council of Trent, they are printed in this edition at the end, and under the title Libri Apo^ cryphi. See vol. III. p. 1038, &c. The other apocryphal books are intermixed with the canonical books in the manner above- described. ^ An English translation of the Hebreio Bible would not in- deed be consistent with the Decree quoted above in Note 2. 86 Comparative View of the Chap. V. alone is used by the Romanists of this country. In 1805, a new edition of this English Bible, with Notes by Bishop Chaloner, was printed at Edin- burgh, in five volumes octavo ^. And in this edition, as in the Latin Vulgate, the books of Tobit and Judith are placed immediately after the second book of Esdras, or Nehemiah ; then follows the book of Esther, including both the canonical, and the apo- cryphal part of it. Between Solomon's Song and Isaiah are placed the books of Wisdom and Eccle- siasticus; the book of Baruch immediately follows the lamentations of Jeremiah ; the Song of the three Children is inserted in the third chapter of Daniel, while the story of Susanna makes the thirteenth, and that of Bel and the Dragon the fourteenth chapter of Daniel. Immediately after the book of Malachi, are placed the two books of the Maccabees. But lest it should be supposed, that they are thus excluded from the Canon, we find a Note at the beginning of the first book, in which they are expressJy declared to be ^part of the Canon. There is only one more observation necessary, in order to make the state of the question understood. Among the apocryphal hooks of the Old Testament there are several, which are read in the public service of our Church; especially the books of Wisdoni and Ecclesiasticus, from which txvo books alone nearly thrice as many Lessons arc taken, as from all the other apocryphal books put together. Now these ' Two more editions of this Bible are now printing ; one at Manchester, the other at Dublin. But both of them, as I under- stand, are \n folio, and therefore not very likely to be generally circulated jiraong the common people. Chap. V. Churches of England and Rome. 87 books undoubtedly contain very excellent moral instructions: and our sixth article declares that when apocryphal books are read in the Church, they are read " for example of life and instruction of manners ^." But there is a wide difference be- tween reading a book for instruction of manners, and reading it to establish Doctrines or Articles of Faith. Indeed the sixth article expressly de- clares, that they are not read for the purpose of establishing any Doctrijie. And the bare act of reading them in the Church cannot possibly imply, that they have canonical authority; or the rubric in the Communion Service, which enjoins the read- ing either of a Homily or of a Sermon, after the Nicene Creed, must be supposed to imply, that such Homily or Sermon has likewise canonical authority, II. The difference between the two Churches, in respect to the Canon of Scripture, being now fully understood, let us next inquire into the principles, on whicli they have respectively acted in their determination of the Canon. For this inquiry will enable us to ascertain, which of them has deter- mined righthi. That the Council of Trent assumed the privilege of raising to the rank of canonical authority what was generally acknowledged to have * The observation of Jerom, to whom this Article refers, applies in particular to the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus ; for in reference to these two books he says, " Haec duo volumina " legit ad edificationem plebis, non ad autoritatem ecclesiasti-. ** corum dogmatum confirmandam." Hierotiymi, Opp. torn, /» p, 939. ed. Benedict. 88 Comparative View of the Chap. V. no such authority, is a charge, which cannot b€ made without injustice. The power of declaring canonical a book, which has never laid claijn to that title, is a power not exercised even by the Church of Rome. In this respect, it acts like other Churches: it sits in judgement on existing claims^ and determines, whether they are valid, or not. But as the Church of Rome has decided one way, and the Church of England another, we must inquire into the claims of those books, which the former re- ceives, and the latter rejects, That books of the Old Testament, which xce call apocryphal, were pronounced canonical by the Council of Trent, is a decision by no means peculiar to that Council. Even the third Council of Carthage which was holden before the close of the Jourth century, has given a catalogue of the canonical ■writings of the Old Testament, in which the books of Tobit and Judith, with two books of the Macca- bees are expressly mentioned as belonging to the scripture cw?ow/c<£ '. And the expression, used in ' The forty-seventh Canon of this Council, which was holder* in the year 397, under the presidency of AureHus Bishop of Carthage, is as follows, " Item placuit, ut pra;ter scripturas " canonicas nihil in Ecclesia Icgatur, sub nomine divinarum •• scripturarum. Sunt autem canonicce scripturie : Genesis, Ex- ** odus, Leviticus, Nunieri, Deutcronomium, Jesus Nave, Judi- *' cum, Ruth, Regnorum libri quatuor, Paralipomcnon libri duo, ** Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libri quinqiie, libri duo- ** decim prophctarum, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezcchiel, Daniel, Tobias^ ** Judith, Esther, Esdra; libri duo, MacJiabworitm libii duo. Novi " autem Testamenti, Evangeliorum libri quatuor, Actuuni Apos- *' toloruni liber unu«;, Pauli apostoli cpistola; tredocim, ejusdem *• ad Hfbra;os una, Petri Apostoli duie, Joannis Apostoli tres, " Judic Apostoli una, et Jacobi una, Apocalypsis Joannis liber ** unus." Lubbvi et Cussartii Cuiicilia, tvm. II. p. 1177. Chap, V. Churches of England and Rome. 89 that catalogue, of iheji've books of Solomon {qidnque libri Solomonis,) must have been designed to include both the book of Wisdom and that of Ecclesiasticus ; the other three being the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song '°. Indeed the Council of Trent declared no other books to be sacred and canonical, than such, as had existed from the earliest ages of Christianit)', not only in the Latin version of the Old Testament, but even in the ancient Greek version, which is known by the name of the Septuagint. The intermixture also of canonical and apocryphal books is observed in the Greek version, as well as in the Latin. It is true, that in the modern printed editions, especially in editions printed by Protestants^ the two kinds are separated. But in the manuscripts of the Septuagint, there is the same intermixture of canonical and apocryphal books as in the manuscripts of the Latin version "• Now this agreement between the Greek and the *° The seemingly strange expression o^ qidnque libri Salomonis is explained by Augustine, who was himself present at the Council. In his treatise, De Doctrina Christiana (Lib. II. cap. 8.) after having mentioned the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solo- mon's Song, as libri tres Salomonis, he immediately adds, illi duo libri, unus qui Sapientia, et alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscri- bitur, de quadam siniilitudine Salomonis dicuntur. Since then Ecclesiasticus, as well as the book of Wisdom, was then called in the Latin Church after the name of Solomon, we can account for the expression quinque libri Salomonis. *' Though the manuscripts of the Septuagint have the same intermixture of canonical and apocryphal books, as those of the Latin version, yet in the particular arrangement of single books there are sometimes variations. For the same apocryphal part, has not always in one manuscript exactly the same place, which it lias in another. 90 Comparative View of the Chap. V. Latin versions of the Old Testament, arose from the ciicumstance, that the old Latin version was nothing more, than a translation of the Greek version. Indeed the Hebrew original was quite inaccessible to Latin translators in Europe and Africa, during the three first centuries. In those ages, the Jews them- selves, who inhabited Greece, Italy, and Africa, read the Old Testament in the Greek version. Thus the Gixek Bible became to the Latin Christians a kind of original, from which they derived their own translation of the Scriptures. But if the Jews in those ages, and in those countries, read the Old Testament in the Greek version, and, except the most learned among them, understood not the Hebrew original, they were still acquainted with the difterence, which subsisted be- tween the former and the latter. Tliey knew, that the Greek Bible contained various books, and parts of books, which were 7iot contained in the Hcbreiv Bible: and to writings of ///w description they con- sequently ascribed less authority. They knew also, that the writings, which the Greek Bible, or the Septuagint, contained in addition to the writings of the Hebrew Bible, were most of them Greek in their very origin : and that, if any of them ever had ex- isted in Hebrew, the Greek translation of them was all that they themselves possessed '*, " The book of Ecclcsiasticus, as appears from chap. L. 27. was written by " Jesus the son of Sirach oi Jerusalem ;^' and was consequently written, not in Greek, but in an oriental h\n. guage. This oriental language is, in the Prologue of his grandson (who translated it into Greek in the time of Euergctes King of Egypt, about 133 A. c.) called the Hebrnv language: in the Chap. V. Churches of England and Rome, 9 1 These writings, whether Greek originals, or Greek translations, though antecedent to the birth of Christ, were, all of them, written within a period, the words of the Greek the things of that book are said to have been 'EiSpVo-T* Myo(Aivx. But a book written by a native of Jerusalem four hundred years after the Babylonish captivity, and written for the purpose of general instruction, could not have been written in the ancient Hebrew, or the Hebrew of the Old Testament. For that language had long ceased to be the ver- nacular language of the Jews ; the descejidants of those who were carried captive to Chaldae, having returned to Judaea with the language of their conquerors. Hence arose the ChaldeeTargums or paraphrases, which were read even in the Synagogues. But though the language spoken by the Jews of Judaea, during several centuries before the birth of Christ was in reality Chaldee, or, as it is sometimes called, Syro-Chaldee, it still went by the name of Hebreiv, the two languages being closely allied, and their con- nexion being made still closer by the circumstance, that after the Captivity the Hebrew Bible was written with Chaldee characters. Hence St. Paul, when he addressed the Jews of Jerusalem in their native language is said to have spoken in the Hebrerv dialect (ti) "EjSpai'iS't JiaXEXTw.) Acts xxii. 2. In the sajne kind of Hebrew therefore, that is, in Chaldee, must Jesus, the son of Sirach, have written. Again, when it is said, that the first book of the Maccabees was written in Hebrew, we must understand the term in the same sense : for sotne of the events recorded in that book, happened within an hundred and fifty years of the birth of Christ. Those two books then, Ecclesiasticus and the first of the Maccabees were originally Chaldee ; but the Jews of Jerusalem did not preserve the originals. — Two more books, namely Tobit and Judith, are said to have been written in Chaldee. Jerom ia his Preface to Tobit calls it librum Chaldceo sermone conscriptura (torn. I. p. 1158. ed. Benedict.) : and in his Preface to Judith he calls also//mf book liber Chaldxo sermone conscriptus (Ib.p.l 170.) But the Chaldee copies of Tobit and Judith, of which Jerom speaks, maij at least have been nothing more than mere translations from the Greek. And that they rt-^re so is not improbable, since prigen, who lived more than an hundred and fifty years before Jerorai 9Q Comparative View of the Chap. V. which could not liave extended to more than two centuries before that event. At what particular time each of them was written it would be difficult at Jerom, declares, that he had inquired among the Jews themselves, {namely those of Judaea) about the books of Tobit and Judith, and had learnt that those books did not then exist among them. avTa xa» i» uvoKpCpoii; i^^cc'iar^i, w? aw otitZt iJt.a.6otTii lyvtiy.UfjLit, Ep. ad Africanum Cap. 13. torn. I. p. 26. ed Benedict. And we know that in modern times the book of Tobit has been translated into Hebrew, as appears from the editions of Fagius and Miin- ster. — That the book of Baruch had an oriental origin, must be mere conjecture, for Jerom, in his Preface to Jeremiah says, Librum autem Baruch, notarii ejus, qui apud Hebra?os nee legitur ncc habetur prastermisimus, (tom. I. p. 554. ed. Benedict.) — Of the book of Wisdom says Jerom, " apud Hebra^os yiusquam est ; quia et ipse stylus Groccnm eloquentiam redolet. (lb. p. 938.) — That no other book of Esdras, than the txwjirst, called Ezra and Nehemiah, had either a Hebrew or a Chaldee origin, appears from Jerom's Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah. He uses even the strong expression, ** nee apocryphorum tertii et qitarti somniis delectetur." (lb p. 1106.) — Of the book of Daniel says Jerom, ** apud Hebrceos, ucc Susannae habcs historiani, nee hymnum trium " puerorum, nee Belis draconisquc fabulas." (lb. p. 990.) Indeed the Story of Susanna betrays its Greek origin by the play on the words e7x~">* and <7;^(cri» in ver. 55, and on the words •n-piw* and •Kfiaoii in ver. 59. — That the additions made in the Septuagint to the book of Esther had any other than a Greek origin, is in the highest degree improbable. Jerom, in his Preface to the book of Esther acUlresscs his readers in the following terms, ** Tencntcs ** Esther Ilebrnicum librum per singula verba nostram transla- ** tionem aspicite ; ut possitis agnoscere me nihil ctiam augincn' *' tasse addenda, sed fidcli tcstimonio simpliciter, sicut in Hebrtro " habetur, historiani Ilebraicam Latino; linguictradidisse." (lb. 1 138.) Origen also (Ep. ad Africanum cap. 3.) mentions several of those additions by itamc, and describes them as %Xi\ai3i va^' fifj-Tii xn/xeva ^ v»^' *E/3f2ioK. Now if the additional part.s of Esther ever had existed in Hebrew, the Jews of Palestine would surely Uavc retained them. Of the prayer of Manasses no one ever COH- Chap. V. Churches of England and Rome. dS present to determine : but it is probable, that their insertion in the Septuagint took place in the same gradual manner, as the books themselves appeared and were approved. Their insertion may be as- cribed to the Greek Jews, resident at Alexandria and other parts of Egypt, who were desirous of preserving every document, which had any relation to their history and religion. In the choice of the places, which they assigned to these writings in the Septuagint, they were directed partly by the subjects of those writings, partly by their relation to other wri- tings, and partly by thepdnW^-, in which the recorded transactions were supposed to have happened. Thus the additions, which had been made to the book of Esther, they incorporated in the book itself: and in the book of Daniel they incorporated the Song of the three Children, the Story of Susanna, and that of Bel and the Dragon, as these additions appeared to be comiected with the book of Daniel. For a similar reason, the book ascribed to Baruch, became an appendage to the book of Jeremiah. The Greek Esdras appeared properly connected with the trans- lation of the Hebrew Esdras. Again, as the book of Wisdom bore the name of Solomon, it was placed after the Srnig of Solomon : and the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or the book of Ecclesiasticus, was placed after the Wisdom of Solomon, in con- sequence of both books having a similar subject. conjectured, that it had an oriental origin : and some writers have (mistakenly indeed) imagined that it existed not even in Greek. See Fabricii Bib. Graeca, torn. III. p. 733. ed. Harles. Lastly, in respect to the second book of the Maccabees, says Jerom, *' Secundus Gnrcus est ; quod ex ipsa quoque pkrasi pro- bari potest." (torn. I. p. 322.) 94 Comparative View of the Chap. V. The books of Tobit and Judith were placed before the book of Esther. And, as the books of the Maccabees recorded the most recent events, they had the last place assigned to them in the Septuagint.— How long before tlic birth of Christ these additional writings (which afterwards acquired the name of apocryphal writings) had obtained a place in the manuscripts of the Septuagint we do not exactly know ; but the time, when they were generally written as parts of the Greek Bible, could not have commenced lo7ig before the birth of Christ. Now it cannot be denied, that the insertion of these additional writings among the books translated from the Hebrexv Scrip- tures, shews how highly they were esteemed by the Greek Jews of Egypt, to whom the insertion may be ascribed. Yet it does not appear, that even the Egyptian Jews ascribed to them that canonical authority, which they ascribed to the books trans- lated from the Hebrew Bible. This at least is cer- tain, that Philo, who was himself an Egyptian Jew, and who lived in the first century, ascribed canonical authority to no other books, than those, which were contained in the Ilebrcro Bible, and which alone were acknowledged by the Jews of Palestine *'. '* Though Philo of Alexandria must have been acquainted with such books as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, and other apocryphal books of the Old Testament, he has never quoted them, at least not for the pur- pose of establishing any position whatever. This is asserted by Mr.Hornemann in his Observationes ad illustrationem doctrimt de Canone Veteris Testarnenti ex Philonc. Now Mr. Ilorncmann, who was formerly a pupil of Michaelis at Goettingen, declares in this tract, that he had carefully examined the whole of Philo's Works, for the purpose of determining this very question. Chap. V. Churches of England and Rome. 95 Such was the state of things, when the Greek Bible was adopted by the early Latin Church, as a kind of origi?ial for the Old Testament. And, as the Latin translator or translators were unable to discriminate between books originally Greek, and books originally Hebrew, they translated them in the mass, and received them with equal 'veneration {pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia.) Hence the celebrated Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, whose reading was chiefly confined to works in his nafwe language, regarded all the books of the Latin Version as books oi canonical authority. In his treatise De Doctrind Christiana, he has stated what he calls the ' Whole Canon of Scripture,' (Totus Canon Scripturarum :) and in this Canon he expressly names the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and two books of ^laccabees'*. No notice indeed is taken in this '* Totus autem Canon Scripturarum, in quo istam consider- ationem versandam dicimus, his libris continetur ; quinque Moy- 6eos, id est, Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, Numeris, Deuteronomio ; et uno libro Jesu Nave ; uno Judicum, uno libello, qui appella- tur Ruth, qui magis ad Regnorum principium videtur pertinere : deinde quatuor Regnorum, et duobus Paralipomenon, non con- sequentibus, sed quasi a latere adjunctis, simulque pergentibus. Hsec est historia, quae sibinet annexa tempera continet, atque ordinem rerum. Sunt aliae tanquam ex diverso ordine, quae ne- que huic ordini, neque inter se counecluntur : sicut est Job, et Tobias, et Esther, et Judith, et Machabixorum libri duo, et Es- drae duo, qui magis subsequi videntur ordinatam illam historiara usque ad Regnorum et Paralipomenon terminatam. Deinde Prophetae ; in quibus David unus liber Psalmorum, et Salomonis tres, Proverbiorum, Cantica Canticorum, et Ecclesiastes. Nam illi duo libri, unus, qui Sapientia, et alius qui Ecdesianticus inscri- bitur, de quadam similitudine Salomonis dicuntur ; nam Jesus Sirach eos conscripsisse constantissime perhibetur ; qui taraen, quoniara g6 Comparative View of the Chap. V. Canon, either of the apocryphal parts of Estlier and Daniel, or of the book of Baruch. But as in the Latin Version the two former were constituent parts of Esther and Daniel, and Baruch was an appendage to Jeremiah, the very circumstance of his mentioning those books without an observation, shews that he received those books entire (libros ipsos integros, cum omnibus suis partibus) '*. At length in the beginning of the fifth Century a ?iew Latin translation of the Old Testament was published by Jerom'^ And this translation was quoniam in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter propheticos mi- merandisiint. Augustini 0pp. torn. III. P. I. p. 23. ed. Benedict. He then mentions by name each of the sixteen prophetical books ; and concludes with the observation, His quadraginta quatuor libris Testamenti Vcteris tenninatur auctoritas. — His Canon of the Neio Testament, which is subjoined to his Canon of the Old Testament, is exactly the same with our own. '' Though we are not at present concerned with the Canon of the Greek Church, it will not be superfluous to observe, that the Greek Fathers did not make such mistakes in regard to the canonical writings of the Old Testament, as the Latin Fathers. But even the Greek Fathers were sometimes led into mistakes by the use of the Septuagint, and its iJitermixture of apocryphal w ith canonical books. Modern writers on the Canon of the Old Testament have frequently attempted to explain the mistakes both of the Greek and of the Latin Fathers, by contending that, when they ascribe canonical authority to an apocryphal book, they do it only to a certain degree, or under certain I'nnitalinns. Now a book is either canonical, or it is not canonical : there is no such thing as a medium. Indeed such explanations arc mere subterfuges, founded on the false notion, that the Canon of the Old Testament must be regulated by the opinions of the Fathers. It must be regulated tvholli/ and aolcljj by the answer to the ques- tion ; IVhat books were contained in tiiose Hebrew Scriptures, which received the sanction of our Saviour? " It was begun before the end ol the fourth century, but not finished Chap. V. Churches of England and Rome. 97 made, not, like the old Latin translation, from the Greek Version, but from the Hebrew Original. From that period, the difference between the Latin Canon and the Hebrew Canon became generally known : and Jerom himself has clearly explained it in his Prologusgaleatus^"^. He h?iS \hevQ enumerated the books, contained in the Hebrew Bible, " that we may know, that whatever is beside them, should be placed among the Apocrypha'^. But though Jerom was far the most learned among the Latin Fathers, his opinion on the Canon of Scripture, did not prevail in the Church of Rome. The books, which he had termed apocryphal, were not only retained in the Latin Version, but retained inter- mixedj as before, with the books confessedly cano- nical. Thus the Canon of Augustine continued to be the Canon of the ruling party. But, as there were not wanting persons, especially among the learned, who, from time to time, recommended the Canon of Jerom, it was necessary for the Council of Trent to decide between the contending parties. And, as Luther, on the one hand, decided in favour of finished till after the year 405. See Martianay's second Pro- legomenon to the Divina Biblioiheca Hieronymi. '7 The Prologus galeatus was so called, because it was con- sidered as a sort of helmet, at the head of Jerom's translation of the Hebrew Bible. Indeed Jerom himself calls it galeatum principium omnibus libris, quos de Hebraeo vertimus in Latinum. It is called also Prcefatio Hieronymi de omnibus libris Veteris Teslamenti, and is printed under that name in the Benedictine edition of Jerom's Works, vol. I. p. 318 — 322. " Ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos est, inter 'Att'- y.fv(fa, esse ponendum. lb. p. 322. G gS Comparative View of the Chap. V. Jerom '', the Council of Trent, on the other hand, decided in favour of Augustine, Hence also we discover (what is not generally known) the i^easotif why the Council of Trent omitted the third and fourth books of Esdras, with the Prayer of Manasses. They were omitted in the catalogue oi Augustine^", '9 The books, and parts of books, of which Jerom had said that they should be placed "inter aVixpv^ia," were separated in Luther's German translation from the books contained in the Hebrew Bible, and placed together by themselves under the title " Apocrypha, that is, Books, wliich are not to be considered as equal to Holy Scripture, and yet are useful and good to read." *' If it be asked why Augustine A m^e//' omitted them, an answer may easily be given. The Jburth book of Esdras, or the second apocryphal book of Esdras, is neither contained in the present copies of the Septuagint, nor is it known to have ever occupied a place in it ; though it once probably existed elsewhere in Greek (See Fabricii Bib. Groeca, tom. Ill p. 744. ed. Harles.) Since then the old Latin version was a translation of the Septua- gint, the fourth book of Esdras could have had no place in the early copies of it ; and a long time probably elapsed before it oi/fl/»<'c? admission there. Canonical authority therefore could not be ascribed to a book, which was known to be wanting, as well in the Gieek, as in the Hebrew ; though it has a place in existing manuscripts of the Vulgate (as appears from Sabatier, Bib. sacra tom. III. p. 10S8.) and has a place also in many prhited editions of it. — The thirdbook of Esdras is certainly a part of the Septua- gint, and has a place in the principal editions of it, with the ex- ception of the Coniplutcnsian edition, and those which are copies of that edition (Fabricii B. G. tom. III. p. 744.) In the manu- scripts of the Septuagint it is commonly placed before the trans- lation of the Hebrew Ezra ; and so it is placed in the Roman edition of the Septuagint. In the London Polyglott it is detached from the canonical Ezra, and placed in the fourth volume with the other apocryphal books. But, as the Complutensian edition, which was printed from manuscripts, does not contain the Greek te.\t of this book, though it contained Uie Latin text, we may infer, Chap. V. Churches of England and Rome. 99 III. The preceding narrative, which explains the manner, in which the apocryphal parts of the Old infer, that the Greek text was not in their manuscripts. And if the MSS. of the Septuagint do not generally contain the third book of Esdras, it may at least have been wanting in that manu- script, from which the old Latin version was first made, and thus have remained untranslated ; which will account, both for the omission of it by Augustine, andfor the strong expression applied, as well to the thh-d as to i\\e fourth book, by Jerom. Luther also omitted not only the fourth, but even the thirdhook in his trans- lation of the Apocrypha, induced perhaps by the additional motive, that the Greek text of the third book was unhioim to him. Nor are any Lessons from these books appointed to be read in our ovon Church. Those editions of the Latin Vulgate, which contain these books have them after the first and second books. But so prevalent was the notion, that the thirds as well as the fourth book, existed only in the Latin, that in several editions of the Vulgate printed in the sixteenth century, the third book of Esdras is prefaced with the observation. Hie, et sequens, Esdrae liber non alio extant sermone, quam Latino. This observation is retained even in the Basel edition of 1581.— The Prayer of Manasses is again not generally contained in the manuscripts of the Septuagint, which will account, as well for Jerom's silence about it, as for Augustine's omission of it. It is contained how- ever in the Codex Alexandrinus among some hymns annexed to the Psalms ; and it is printed in the London Polyglot. Those editions of the Vulgate, which contain tliis Pi-ayer, have it usually at the end of the Chronicles : and it is so placed in manu- scripts of the Vulgate (Sabatier, Biblia sacra, torn. IIL p. 1038.) No notice has been taken in this Chapter of the third book of the Maccabees, because it is equally omitted in the English and Latin Bibles, between which the comparison has been made. But it is certainly a part of the Septuagint, and is usually printed with the firstand second books. It is contained also in the most ancient manuscripts now extant. But it could not have had a place in the Septuagint, when the old Latin version was made. Indeed it Tiffver obtained a place in the Latin version ; and it appears to o 2 have 100 Comparative View of the Chap. V. Testament were gradually inserted in the Septuagint, and thence transferred to the Latin Version, is sufficient to sljew their want of caiwnical authority. The Church of Rome indeed has dignified the Latin Canon with the title of "The Canon of the Church" ;" while it has attempted to degrade the Hebrtw Canon, by calling it " The Canon of the Scribes and Phari- sees"." But they should know, that this Canon, call it what they will, was the Canon and the sole Canon of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Nor was any other Canon of the Old Testament acknowledged by the Apostles, though the Church of Rome pretends, that the Latin Canon was received from apostolical tradition. The writings of the Old Testament, which re- have been totally unknovon to the Latin Fathers. Even Jerom, though he speaks of every other part of the apocrj'phal writings, has no where even alluded to the third book of Maccabees. At whatever time therefore the book was written, it could not have found its way into the manuscripts of the Septuagint, till ajier his time. Indeed the very circumstance of its having the last place assigned to it, though the events, which it records, are antecedent to those of the first book, implies, that it was a late addition. *' This title was given to it by Augustin, who distinguished the Canon of the Church, from the Canon of the Jews. In his treatise, De Civitate Dei, lib. XVIII. cap. '26, speaking of the two books of the Maccabees, which the Jews, in their contro- versies with the Latin Christians, would of course not allow to be canonical, he says, " Machabaeorum libri, quos non juUiEi, sed ECCLESiA pro canonicis habet, &c." Tom. VIL p. 519. ed. Benedict. ** Bishop Chaloner in the Note prefixed to the first book of the Maccabees says of those two books, " They are received by " the Church, who in settling her Canon of the Scriptures, chose " ratlier to be directed by the tradition she had received from the " Apostles of Christ, than by thutof the i>cri6cs and Pharisees.^' Chap. V. Churches of England and Rome. 101 ceived the sanction of our Saviour, are the writings, and the only writings of the Old Testament, which can be admitted into the Canon of Scripture by those, who bear the name of Christian. But the Scriptures, which he sanctioned, were the very Scriptures, which are now contained in the Hebrevy Bible, and which constitute (in the Old Testament) the Canon of the Church of England. When our Saviour appeared to the Apostles after his resurrection he said to them, " These are the words, which " I spake unto you while 1 was yet with you, that " all things must be fulfilled, which were written in " THE LAW OF MOSES, and in THE PROPHETS, and in " THE PSALMS, conccmiug me." Now it is well known, that the Jews divide the books of the Hebrew Bible into three classes. The frst class contains the five books, which compose the law of MOSES. The second class contains the books of the prophets, including not only the books, which we call by that name, but various historical books, pro- ceeding from writers, to whom the Jews gave likewise the title of prophet ; such as the books of Joshua, the Judges, Samuel, &c. The third class contains the books, which in Hebrew are called Chetubim^ in Greek Hagiographa ; among which books the PSALMS occupy thefirst place in the Hebrew Bible*', *^ See, for instance, the edition of Van der Hooght, than which there is none more correct. It is true, that there are some Hebrew manuscripts, in which Job occupies the first place of the Chetubim, But the majority place the Psalms first. We may fairly presume therefore, that the Psalms occupied the first place among the Chetubim in the time of our Saviour. Indeed the very circumstance of his designating the third class by the •name of the Psalms implies it. 102 Comparative View of the Chap. V. and hence have given name to the whole class* When our Saviour therefore spake of the Old Testa- ment, as composed of three parts, the law of MOSES, the PROPHETS, and the psalms, he gave an exact description of the Htbreu) Bible. It is true, that our Saviour did not enumerate the books of each class : but it may be easily shewn, tliat the three classes comprehended the present books of the Hebrew Bible, and no more. For the Jirst class was devoted exclusively to the writings of Moses : and the second class admitted only the writings of those, whom the Jews denominated the prophets. Neither the first nor the second class therefore ever could have contained the productions of later writers, whom the Jews could not possibli/ regard in the same light as their ancient prophets. Nor could even the thi?'d class have contained any of those books, which we call Apocrypha. For most of them were Greek in their very origin, and consequently were incapable of admission into the Hebrexr Canon. And with respect to the Jru^ among them, which may have been written in that kind of Hebrew, which was spoken in latter times by the Jews of Palestine, it would have been quite inconsistent with the veneration of the Jews for their ancient Hebrew Scriptures, to liave admitted whole books written in Chaldee, though they did not exclude the works either of Ezra or of Daniel on account of bomc parts of them being Ciialdee. But let us examine more particularli/ tlie books, of which the Hebrew Scriptures arc composed. M'e liave already seen, that Jerom, m ho translated the Ikhrtnv Bible into Latin, lia^, in iiis Proloi6uii oZ» ii'i tr.t 'AmToXjjc, x»» ?»»? toD tow«w yifo- riaXaiij A»aGixu? ^i/Sxia, L7roTa|«? iVt/*4"» <''<"* '^' '°^* ''''* •>Bf««T«. Muiiaiui wot*' riHcTK, "E|oJot, Ait;»T»xo», 'AptO/xof, AiuTipo»o/A»oi., 'intrcviy Nav?, KpiT«» 'Potd't Baia»?i£i«» -riaaafa, 'jipt^iou, Twr oiiiiHct It iAC»o$i0^u, A«n»!A 'lff«>t»*J^, Eerof»i. E^ Z, xa.1 rui IxXoyuf s7roi»;<7a//.r,». EuSfbli, Hist. EcclCS. lib. IV. COp. 26. torn. I. p. 191. cd. Keailing. Chap. V. Churches of England and Rome. 107 Origen, who wrote in the thi?^d century^*, the omission of Esther may be ascribed to a mere over- sio-ht, unless Esther as well as Nehemiah may be supposed to be included under Esdras. That the Hebrew Scriptures, seen by Melito, did not contain the book of Esther, is incredible. For it is not only contained in the Catalogue of Origen and Jerom, but is the book, on which was founded the feast of Pwim ; a feast so important to the Jews, that the celebration of it continues to this very day. We now proceed to a testimony, which is more important than any of the preceding, the testimony of Josephus, who was himself a Jezvish Piiest^ and moreover a contemporary of the Jposfles^K But, to understand the testimony of Josephus, it is necessary to know the peculiar manner, in which the Jews co?i?iected the several books of the Hebrew Bible. We have already seen, that they referred the books of the Hebrew Bible to th?'ee classes ; that the first class alzvays contained the five books of Moses ; but that the second and third classes did not always con- tain the same books. On the other hand, when the two classes were taketi together^ the books, which they included upon the whole, were invariably the same. Now the number of books, which constituted both classes amounted to seventeen. For it appears from Jerom's Prologus galeatus, that they reckoned the books of Judges and Ruth as one book, as also ^^ Origen's Catalogue of the Scriptures is preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. VI. cap. 25. ^^ Josephus was born at Jerusalem about the j^ear 37, of the Christian Era: and therefore though much younger than the Apostles, must still have been contemporary with many of them, especially with St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John. a 08 Comparative T^ew of the Chap. V. the two books of Samuel, the two of Kings, and the two of Chronicles. Further they reckoned Ezra and Nehemiah as one book ; and the Lamentations of Jeremiah they considered only as a part of Jeremiah '*. Of the twelve minor prophets they again made only o?ie book. On the other hand, the books of Joshua, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Solomon's Song, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel were reckoned as so many single books. Upon the whole then seventeen books constituted the second and third classes, which, with the Jive books constituting the first class, brought the whole number to twenty-two, the number of letters in the Hebrew Alphabet ". Now says Josephus, in his treatise against Apion^*, "We have not thousands of books, dis- '* Some Jews indeed, wlien Jerom wrote his Prologus ga- leatus, had began to separate as well the Lamentations from the prophecy of Jeremiah, as Ruth from the book of Judges : and they are now separated in the Hebrew Bibles. But it is evident, that Josephus reckoned as Jerom did, and as did the great ma- jority of the Jews at that time. For Jerom says only NonnuUi Ruth et Cinoth inter Hagiographa scriptitant. ^■^ Though the reduction to 22 was probably made for the very purpose of bringing the books of the Hebrew Bible to an equality in number with the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, the coincidence was afterimrdi considered as something mysterious. Hence Jerom in his Prologus galeatus says, Viginti duo Volumina i^upputantur, quibus, quasi Literis, et exordiis in Dei doctrina, tencra adhuc ct lactens viri justi eruditur infantia. ^•^ Lib. L Cap. 8. torn. H. p. 4'H. ed. Havercanip, The same passage is quoted also by Euscbius (Hist. Eccles lib. HI. cap. 10.) of which the following is a copy. Oii ^tfia^n otir i»'cri ^ijS^ib' lauf r.fjut ucvfA^utuv roii fAap^ofiinu*' ovi oi fi-tct v^~c( Tot( fiK.ocrt ^t^^.tM, Tufc nrutn^ 'f/j,tTa yj^tov t>j» at»yfx^inif rei Chap. V. Churches of England and Rome. 109 " cordant, and contradicting each other ; but we have " oniy twenty-twOj which comprehend the history of " all former ages, and are justly regarded as divine. " Five of them proceed from Moses ; they include " as well the laws, as the account of the creation of " man, extending to the time of his (Moses's) " death. This period comprehends nearly three " thousand years. From the death of Moses to " that of Artaxerxes, who was King of Persia after " Xerxes, the prophets, who succeeded Moses, " committed to writing, in thirteen books, what was " done in their days. The remaining four books " contain Hymns to God, and instructions of life for " man." — If we compare this passage of Josephus with Jerom's Prologus galeatus, we shall find, 1st, That they agree in having thixe classes ; 2dly, in making the whole number of books amount to twenty-tzvo ; 3dly, in describing the books of the first class, as amounting Xofir^e ; 4thly, in describing the books belonging to the second and third classes, as amounting together to seventeen. But they differ in regard to the repartition of the seventeen. By comparing however the two accounts we shall easily ascertain the books, which composed the Canon of Josephus. In the third class he places only four books, which, from his description of them, appear jikxfittw; ^iix -TTiirnrrcVfAeyx. Kal tovtu* 'urivri fjii* im rec Muvtreuif a Tof< TE No/xows •irepit^et, xat t>)ji t?j ocy^fuiroyovieii irccoeiaocrnif f^^Xf^ T?? avTov TeMv'r^<;' ovto( o XP^*"'' »'>^oXuirti Tpicr;^»Xi(tf» ixiyov irat, Airo of tw? Mu'vaiui TsAtfT^j H'-XP^ '''^f Apra^se^oVp TOW fi-itat stf^^v Tlefauv 0xai\tuqy o» (jiitci Mu'vjyjn Trpo^^Ta* t« xxT oivrov<; 7rpa%9£»Ta ffv\iiypa.^xv ev rficr) xcu ^bxo. /3t/3Ai'oK. A» ^e fiiov 'noifiix.wui. Tom. I. p. 103. ed. Reading. 110 Comparative View of the Chap. V. evidently to have been the Psahns, the Proverbs, the Preacher or Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song. These four books are placed also in Jeronis third class ; but then he has Jive other books in the third class namely, Job, Daniel, Chronicles, Esdras, and Esther. These five books therefore must have been in the second class of Josephus : for he agrees with Jerom in the whole number, and likewise in regard to ihejirst class. If then we add those five books to the books contained in Jerom' s second class, it will appear that the second class of Josephus must have contained the books of Joshua, Judges with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Esdras, Esther, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah with the Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the book of the twelve minor prophets. And thus we have exactly thirteen books, which Josephus expressly says was the number of his second class. The books therefore which con- stituted the Hebrew Bible of Josephus, were the books, which constituted the Hebrew Bible oi Jerom, that is, the books which constitute the Hebrew Bible at this present day. It is worthy of remark, that Josephus determines the period, when the Hebrew Canon was closed, or the period, after which no books were further ad- mitted into it, by the reign of Artaxerxes, successor of Xerxes, that is Artaxerxes Longimanus. For it was during his reign, that the book of Esther was written ; whereas the very oldest among the apo- cryphal books must have been written long aj'ter that period. Indeed Josephus himself, in reference to those very books, with wliich he was not unac- quainted, immediately after the passage above-quoted, Chap. V. Churches of England and Rome. 1 1 1 proceeds in the following manner : " From the time " of Artaxerxes to the present time all things indeed " have been committed to writing : but these witings " are not thought worthy of equal credit with those, " which preceded them, on account of there not " being that regular succession of prophets^'','" We learn then from the testimony of Josephus, not only that the Hebrew Scriptures, in the time of Christ and his Apostles, were composed of those very books, of which they are now composed, but that all later writings, such as those, which constitute our Apo- crypha, were excluded, because the authors of them had not the prophetical spirit, or divine inspiration. Upon the whole then we may conclude, that the Canon of the Old Testament, which is adopted by the Church of England, is the Canon, which received the sanction of our Saviour. But the Canon, adopted by the Church of Rome, was sanc- tioned, neither by Christ, nor by his Apostles. They call it indeed a Canon, received by apostolical Tradition. But it is a Canon, which was founded, from the very beginning, on a glamig mistake. The Greek Bible, with its numerous interpolations, being from ignorance of Hebrew regarded in the light of an original^ canonical and apocryphal writings were admitted indiscriminately y and finally ratified by the Council of Trent, as writings to be received pari pietatis affectu ac reverently. 112 Comparative View of the Chap. VI. CHAP. VI, REMARKS ON THE ADDITIONAL INFLUENCE WHICH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CHURCHES, IN REGARD TO THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE, MUST HAVE HAD ON THEIR RE- SPECTIVE DOCTRINES. INFLUENCE OF 77?^- DITION ON THE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE, WHEN APPLIED AS A RULE FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF IT. THE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE FURTHER AFFECTED BY THE LATIN TRANSLATION, TO WHICH ALONE THE CHURCH OF ROME ALLOWS AN APPEAL IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINES, WHICH DIS- TINGUISH THE CHURCH OF ROME, AS GIVEN IN THE TRENT CONFESSION OF FAITH. AT appears from the preceding Chapter, that the Church of Rome has placed in the Canon of the Old Testament the books of Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, with the first and second of the Maccabees, beside Baruch as an appenda*:e to Jeremiah, and various additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. These books, and parts of books, were pronounced * sacred and canonical ' by the Council of Trent, and declared equal in authority to the other books of the Old Testament. Since then so large an addition to the IVritten JVord, beside the whole of the Unwritten JVord is employed by the Church of Rome in establishing Chap. VI. Churches of England and Rome. 1 1 3 Doctrines \ while the Church of England rejects the Unwritten Word altogether, and never uses the Apocrypha " to establish B.ny Doctrine*;'' we need not wonder, that their Articles of Faith are widely different. In the second and third Chapters, which relate to Scripture and Tradition, we traced the causes to the effects, and shewed the influence of Tradition on the Doctrines of the Church of Rome by a reference to numerous examples. That the difference between the two Churches, in regard also to the Canon of Scripture, must have had an additional influence on their respective Doctrines, can hardly be doubted. When six whole books, beside parts of other books, are received as authority for Doctrines by 07ie Church, but not received as such by the other, it is hardly possible, that such a cause of difference should exist without producing a correspondent effect. But though the Council of Trent, by distinguishing Tradition from Scripture, has enabled us to judge of the Doctrines, which receive their chief support from the former, it has not enabled us to distinguish the support, M'hich is afforded by the apocryphal writings of the Old Testament, from the support, which is afforded by the canonical writings. For, when the Decrees of the Council of Trent are pre- faced by an appeal to Scripture, as well as to Tra- dition, the appeal is made in such general terms, as to leave the question undecided, whether the caiiofii- cal, or the apocryphal parts of Scripture were the subjects of reference. ' In confirmandis Dogmatibus^ as expressed by the Couucil of Trent. See the Decree quoted in Chap, II. Note 10. * Art. VI. H 114 Comparative View of the Chap. VI« We have no other means therefore of deter- mining, whether their appeals to Scripture had reference to the Apocrypha, or not, than by con- sulting the principal writers of that Church, who have made particular reference, where the reference of the Council itself was only general. It would be tedious, and indeed unnecessary, to search for every example of this kind, which might be found among the Romish writers; and therefore nothing more shall be attempted, than to give an instance or two from the works of Bellarmine. It appears from the second Chapter, that the Council of Trent professed to derive the doctrine of Purgatory both " from the sacred writings, and the ancient tradition of the Fathers ^" Now Bellarmine has written a particular treatise on the subject of Purgatory, which is contained in the second part of his Controversies on the Christian Faith*. And in his treatise he brings proofs of the Doctrine from the fourth chapter of the book of Tobit ; the second, the fourteenth, and the eighteenth chapters of Ecclesiasticus ; and the twelfth chapter of the second book of Maccabees K — The treatise on Purgatory is followed by three other treatises, the first relating to "The Beatitude and Canonization of the Saints," the second to " The Relicks and Images of Saints ;" the third " to the Worship of Images and Saints*." And here again Bellarmine has recourse ^ Ex sacris literis, et antiqua Patrum traditione. See Chap. II. Note 21. ♦ Col. 699—822. ed. Ingolstadt, 1601. fol. » See Col. 703. 707. 775. * Dcbeatitudine et canonizatione Sanctorum, Col. 824—921. De Chap. VI. Churches of England and Rome. 115 to the authority of the same three books, Tohitt Ecclesiasticus, and the second of the Maccabees'^. These few examples are sufticient to shew the utihty of the Apocrypha to the Church of Rome : for hence we see, that it supplies them with passages in support of Doctrines where scriptural support is chiefly wanted'. Nor is the augmentation of Scripture, by the means of the apocryphal writings, the only additional cause of a difference in Doctrines. For as Tradition serves the double purpose of furnishing Doctrines, ■which are not contained in Scripture, and of ex- plaining those, which Scripture either does contain, De Reliquiis, et Imaginibus Sanctorum, Col. 1028. De Cultu Imaginum, et de Cultu Sanctorum, Col. 1030 — 1127. ^ See for instance Col. 841, where the eleventh chapter of Ecclesiasticus is quoted ; Col. 891, where the twelfth chapter of Tobit is quoted ; Col. 895, where the fifteenth chapter of the second book of Maccabees is quoted ; &c. * The book of Wisdom is quoted by Bellarmine in favour of the Monastic Life, and the Celibacy of the Clergy. See the treatise Z)e Clericis, Lib. I. cap. 21 : and the treatise De Monachis, Lib. II. cap. 9. 31. And in the fourth chapter of the frst book of Maccabees, as well as in the last chapter of Judith, Bellarmine has discovered passages, which favour the supremacy of the Pope, See his treatise De Romano Pontifice, Lib. IV. cap. 17. But I mention these examples only in a Note, because they relate not to Doctrines. — Another observation, which may likewise be made in aNote, relates to an application of the Apocrypha, which would be attended with real use. But then those books must ke read in the Greek, not in the Latin Vulgate. Being written in the same Hebrew kind of Greek, as the New Testament, the expressions used in the former, may be often applied with advantage, to the explanation of correspondent expressions in the latter. And various works have been written for the purpose of explaining the application. But it would be foreign to our inquiry to say more upon this subject. H 2 116 Comparative View of the Chap. VI. or is supposed to contain, the application of it in its interpretative capacity must again have material influence on the Doctrines themselves. When Tradition is applied as a rule for the interpretation of Scripture, its effects are widely different from those of any other rule. When we interpret the Hebrew Bible, or the Greek Testament, by those grammatical and critical rules, which are applied to all other works of antiquity, we consider the words of the text, as signs to the reader of what was thought by the writer; and the process of interpretation has no other object than to draxv out of the words the sense, which the author himself intended to place in them. This is literally Exegesis, or an Extraction of the sense, which the words really contain. But when a Romanist applies Tradition, and applies it to the interpretation of the Latin Vulgate, (declared authentic by the Council of Trent) the relation of the text to the rule of interpretation has no analogy whatever to that of the former case. Wiien Doctrines, contained, or sup- posed to be contained, in the IVritten Word, are explained by the aid of the Unxvritten Word, the rule of interpretation is supposed to possess the same divine origin, as the text itself. For Tradition, as a Rule of Faith, is composed oiiho^c traditions, which are called divine and apostolical. That those traditions are divine and apostolical merely in the imagination of the Romanists, is a fact, which has been fully established in the fourth chapter. But if they them- selves believe, that such traditions exist ', the eflbct 9 Existunt traditiones divinae ct apostolicnc, qua?, licet non scriptx, vim legis scriptat Imbent. De Ecdesiu Christi. p. 399. Chap. VI. Churches of England and Rome. 1 17 produced upon their Doctrmes must be the same, as if divine and apostolical traditions existed in reality. Now as soon as a man can persuade him- self, that there is such a thing now extant, as an Unwritten Word of God, and can further persuade himself in any given instance, that this Unwritten Word contains a complete revelation of a Doctrine, which the Written Word has revealed imperfectly '*, the former becomes a rule for the interpretation of the latter, which produces the same effect, as if the Doctrine were completely revealed in Scripture alone. Hence Cardinal Hosius asserts, and very consistently asserts, that, " if any one has the interpretation of " the Church of Rome, though he neither knows nor " understands, whether and how it agrees with the '* words of Scripture, he still has the JVord itself ''of God'' r Lastly, among the causes, which distinguish the two Churches in matters of faith, may be reckoned the exclusive acknowledgement of the Latin Vul- gate, on the part of the Church of Rome, " in public Lectures, Disputations, Sermons, and Ej;- '" That Tradition is considered as a Revelation to the Church as well as Scripture itself, appears from what Cardinal Bellarmine says in his treatise on '* The Word of God," Totalis regula fidei est Verbum Dei, sive Revelatio Dei Ecclesioe facta, quee di- viditur in duas regulas partiales, scripturam et traditionem. De Verbo Dei, Lib. IV. cap. 12. " Si quis habet interpretationera Romanae Ecclesiae, etiamsi nee scit, nee intelligit, an et quomodo cum ScripturcB verbis conveniat, is tamen habet ipiissimum Verbum Dei. This passage 1 give on the authority of Gerhard, who in his Loci Theologici, torn. I. p. ^^, (ed. Cotta) has quoted it from the Works of Car- dinal Hosius. 118 Comparative Viexv of the Chap. VI. positions '*. But it is the glory of Protestants, that, in the exposition of Scripture, they enjoy the liberty of appealing to the inspired originals. For here lies the grand distinction between the Churches of England and Rome, in regard to the use of Scripture. The reading of Scripture, in an autho- rised vej'sion, is not prohibited even to the Laity, by any Decree or Canon of the Council of Trent. And even the impediments, which from other quarters, had been thrown in the way of reading the Bible (such for instance as the requiring of a licence for that purpose) have been gradually diminished, if not wholly removed, as appears from the present distribution of Bibles among the Romanists them- selves. It is true, that they allow not the use of a Protestant translation, especially in the Old Testament, of which it has a different Canon. But, as the Church of England could not consistently encourage the distribution of the Doiiaif Bible, even though distributed without note or comment, so the Church of Rome could not consistently encourage the distribution of our authorised version, though the text alone were distributed. If the Romanists in this country are permitted to read the Scriptures in an English Version, such as their oxen Church ** In the second Decree, made at the fourth Session of the Council of Tfcnt, which is entitled, Dccretum de cditione, el usu sacrorum librormn, this Council *♦ statuit et declarat, ut hxc ipsa " vetus et vulgata edition, qua; longo tot sajculorum usu in ipsa " Ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, " pra;dicationibus et (wpositioni/ms pro authentica habcatur, et " ut nemo illain rcjiccre qiiovis jutttexlu audcat vd prxsuwat." P. XXI. Chap. VI. Churches of England and Rome. 1 1 9 approves, we cannot say, that the difference be- tween the Protestants and the Romanists of this country consists in the admission of an authorised version by one party, and the non-admission of an authorised version by the other. With respect therefore to the use of the Holy Scriptures, the grand difference between the two Churches relates to the inspired originals. If the Church of Rome can establish a doctrine by its authorised version, the Latin Vulgate, no appeal is alloxved^ either to the Hebrew in the Old Testament, or to the Greek in the New. Let no one (says the Council of Trent) presume to reject the decision of the Latin Vulgate, under any pretence whatever '^ But the Church of England allows its ministers to appeal, in ex* positions of Scripture, from a translation to the original. Our sixth Article, which corresponds to what was decreed at the fourth Session of the Council of Trent, speaks of Holy Scripture in general terms ; it imposes no restraint, and allows therefore by its very silence an appeal to the inspired originals. Indeed this very Article distinctly marks the preference, which was shewn by our Reformers to the Hebrew Bible. Previous to the Reformation, the authorised Version in this country was the Latin Vulgate : yet our Reformers rejected the apocryphal writings of the Old Testament for this very reason, that they were not contained in the Hebrew. And though our present English translation is " appointed to be read in churches," this does not imply, that the same character attaches to it, which, according to the Council of Trent, attaches to the Latin Vulgate. " See the latter part of the preceding Note. 120 Comparative View of the Chap. VI. For those, who do not understand the originals, it was necessary to provide a translation : and indeed it would have been absurd, if any other than an English Bible had been " appointed to be read in Churches" But, wherever our translation is in- accurate (and no translation can be exempt from errors) we may on all occasions appeal to the words of the original. The consequence of such appeals has been already illustrated in this very Work '* : and I have given another example in my eighteenth Lecture '^ Each of these examples is worthy of particular notice : for the one affects the subject of Tradition^ the other the interpretation of Scripture '^ Since then the Churches of England and Rome are fundamentally distinct in so many different respects, and distinct even in the things, which are the foundations of Faith, we need not wonder that the Creed of the latter materially differs from the '♦ See what was said on the terms w« a5'ao-K and traditio, in Chap. IV. •* See p. 107—109. of the Third Part of my Lectures. ** Though I have stated the practice of appeahng from an authorised version to the inspired originals, as that which chiefly distinguishes the Church of England from the Church of Rome, in respect to the use of Scripture, it must be observed that the observation does not apply to all Protestants. For there are some Protestant expounders, to whom an authorised version both huSy and must have, the same high authority, which the Church of Rome ascribes to its authorised verson. Nor is tliis the only resemblance : for both parties pretend to expound under tho influence of the Spirit. But according to the tenets of the Church of England, we aspire not to supernatural aid ; we are contented to interpret the inspired originals by the aid of rea- son and learning. Chap. VI. Churches of England and Rome. 1 2 1 Creed of the former. Without further remarks therefore on the Doctrines themselves, we may conclude the present Chapter with the summary statement of the Articles, which distinguish the two Churches, as it is given in " The Profession of the Catholic Faith, according to the Council of Trent." This Council had decreed in the twenty-fourth Session, that all beneficed clergymen should, under pain of forfeiting their benefice, make a public pro- fession of their faith ''. Accordingly Pope Pius IV, under whose Pontificate the Decree was made, published a Profession of Faith according to the Doctrines maintained by the Council of Trent, with the following title ; Professio fidei catholiccs. secun- dum Concilium Tridentinum ex bulla Pii Papct IV. Consequently this is the authorised Profession of Faith, to which all beneficed Clergymen belonging to the Church of Rome are bound to subscribe, not only by the Bull of Pius IV, but by a Decree of the Council of Trent, Indeed the words of that Decree are quoted in the Bull itself. This Profession of *^ Provisi etiam de beneficiis quibuscunque, curam animarum habentibus, teneantur a die adeptae possessionis, ad minus intra duos menses, in manibus ipsius Episcopi, vel eo irapedito coram generali ejus Vicario, seu OfBciali, orthodoxce succ jidei puhlicam Jacere inofesdonem, et in Romance ecclesia ohedientia se pertnan- suros spondeant, ac jurent. Provisi autem de Canonicatibus et dignitatibus in ecclesiis cathedralibus non solum coram Epis- copo, seu ejus Officiali, sed etiam in Capitulo idem facere teneantur. Alioquin praedicti omnes provisi, ut supra, fructus non faciant suos, nee illis possessio stiffragetur. P. cxc. '^ Cum itaque juxta Concilii Tridentini dispositionem omnes, quos deinceps, &c publicam orthodoxce Jidei prqfessiotiem facere, sequein Romance Ecclesice ohedientia permansuros spondere etjurare tetieantur, Nos volentes &c. 122 Comparative View of the Chap. VI. Faith begins with the Apostles' Creed ; which is suc- ceeded by the twelve following Articles''. " 1. I most firmly admit and receive the apos- tolical and ecclesiastical traditions *°, and all other observances and constitutions of the Church ". '9 The Trent Profession of Faith, with the Pope's accom- panying bull, may, among many other places, be seen in the Sylloge Confessionum, published at Oxford in 1804. *^ Though Bellannine, and the author of the treatise De Ecclesia Christi, speak o^ three kinds, namely, divine, apostolical, and ecclesiastical traditions, we have already seen, that the term * apostolical,' is frequently used, as a generic term, and includes also the divine traditions. Of the traditions, which are called ecclesiastical, more will be said in the next Chapter. ** The Latin original of this Creed, of which a translation is given in the text, is as follows ; " Apostolicas et Ecclesiasticas traditiones, reliquasque ejus- dem Ecclesiae observationes et constitutiones firmissime adrait- to, et amplector. Item sacram Scripturam juxta eum sensum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interprctatione sacrarum Scripturarum, admitto, nee eam un- quam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam, et interpretabor. Profiteor quoque septem esse vere et proprie Sacramenta nova; legis, a Jesu Christo, Domino nostro, instituta, atque ad salutem humani generis, licet non omnia singulis necessaria, scilicet Baptismum, Confirmationem, Eucharistiam, Poeniten- tiam, Extremam Unctionem, Ordinem, et Matrimonium, illaque gratiam conferre, et ex his Baptismum, Confirmationem, et Ordinem, sine sacrilegio reiterari non posse. Receptos quoque et approbates Ecclesia; Catholicse ritus, in supradictorum omnium Sacramentorum solemn! administra- tione, recipio, et admitto. Omnia et singula, qua; de peccato originali, et de justifi- fatione, in Sacrosancfa Tridentina Synodo dcfinita et dcclarata fuerunt, amplector, et recipio. Pro- Chap. VI. Churches of England and Rome. 123 " 2. I admit also the sacred Scriptures according to that sense, which holy mother Church, to whom it appertains to judge of the true meaning and Profiteor pariter in Missa ofFerri Deo verum, proprlum, et propitiatorium sacrificium, pro vivis, et defunctis, atque in sanc- tissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento esse, vere, realiter, et substan- tialiter, corpus et sanguinem, una cum anima, et divinitafee Domini nostri Jesu Christi, fierique conversionem totius sub- stantiae panis in corpus, et totius substantias vini in sanguinem, quam conversionem Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiationem appellat. Fateor etiam sub altera tantum specie, totum atque inte- grum Christum, verumque Saci-amentum sumi. Constanter teneo purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas fidelium sufFragiis juvari. Similiter et Sanctos, una cum Christo regnantes, veneran- dos atque invocandos esse, eosque orationes Deo pro nobis offerre, atque eorum reliquias esse venerandas. Firmissime asserd imagines Christi, ac Dei-parae semper virginis, nee non aliorum Sanctorum, habendas et retinendas esse, atque eis debitum honorem ac venerationem impertiendam. Indulgentiarum etiam potestatem a Christo in Ecclesia re- lictam fuisse, illarumque usum Christiano populo maxime salu- tarem esse, affirmo. Sanctam Cathollcam, et Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam, omnium Ecclesiarum matrem, et magistram agnosco, Roma- noque Pontifici, B. Petri Apostolorum principis successori, ac Jesu Christi Vicario, veram obedientiam spondeo ac juro. Caetera item omnia a Sacris Canonibus, et oecumenicis Con- ciliis, ac praecipue a Sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita, definita, et declarata, indubitanter recipio, atque profiteor, simulque contraria omnia, atque haereses quascumque ab Eccle- sia damnatas, rejectas, et anathematizatas, ego pariter damno, rejicio, et anathematizo. Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, quam in prassenti sponte profiteor, et veraciter teneo, eandem integram et inviolatam, usque ad extremum vitae spiritum, constantissime (Deo adjuvante) retinere, et confiteri, 124 Comparative View of the Chap. V I. interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, hath holden and still holds : nor will I ever receive and interpret them, otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. " 3. I profess likewise, that there are truly and properly, seven Sacraments of the new law, in- stituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all of them to every one ; namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Peuance, Extreme unction. Orders, and Matrimony ; and that they confer grace ; and that, of these Sacraments, Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders, cannot be repeated without sacrilege. I receive also and admit the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, in the solemn ad- ministration of all the aforesaid sacraments. *' 4. I embrace and receive all things, and every thing, which have been defined and declared by the holy Council of Trent, concerning original sin, and justification. " 5. Further I profess that in the Mass is offered unto God a true, proper, and projiitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is really, truly, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that a conversion is made of the whole sub- stance of the bread into his body, and of the whole atque a meis subditis, vel illis, quorum cura ad nie in munere meo spectabit, teneri, doceri, ct proedicari, quantum in me erit, curnturum. Efjo idem N. spondeo, voveo, ac juro : sic mc Deus ad- juvet, ft hjL'c sancta Dei Evangelia." Chap. VI. Churches of England and Rome. 125 substance of the wine into his blood ; which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstan- tiation. " 6. I confess also, that under one kind only is received the whole and entire Christ, and the true Sacrament. " 7. I strenuously maintain, that there is a Pur- gatory, and that the souls, detained there, are assisted by the prayers of the faithful. " 8. Likewise that the Saints, who reign together with Christ, are to be venerated and invoked ; and that they offer prayers for us to God ; and that their Relicks are to be venerated. " 9. I most firmly declare, that the images of Christ, and of the ever- Virgin, mother of God, as also of the other Saints, are to be had and retained ; and that due honour and veneration are to be shewn to them. " 10. I affirm also, that the power of Indulgences was left by Christ in his Church ; and that the use of them is very salutary to Christian people. "11. I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Rome, to be the mother, and mistress of all Churches : and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, successor of the prince of the Apostles St. Peter, and the Vice- gerent of Jesus Christ. " 12. Further I do, without doubt, receive and profess all things, which have been delivered, de- fined, and declared by the sacred canons, and oecumenical Councils, especially by the holy Council of Trent ; and all things contrary thereunto, and all heresies of whatsoever kind, which have been con- 126 Comparative View of the Chap. VI. demned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I in like manner condemn, reject, and anatliematize. " This true CathoHc Faith, out of which no one can be saved, which by these presents, I profess and verily hold, I N. N. do promise, vow, and swear, most firmly to keep, and confess (by God's help) entire and inviolate, to the last breath of my life ; and that I will take care, as far as in me lies, that the same be holden, taught, and preached by all, who are subject to my controul, or who are connected with my charge. " So help me God, and these the holy Gospels of God." Chap. VII. Churches of England and Rome. 12^ CHAP. VII. OF CnVRCn-CEREMONIES, AND THE TRADITiON WHICH IS CALLED ECCLESIASTICAL. EXPLANA- TION OF OUR THIRTY-FOURTH ARTICLE. DE- FENCE OF THE PRINCIPLES, ON WHICH THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND HAS ACTED IN REGARD TO CEREMONIES. CONSEQUENCES OF CONFOUND- ING THE TRADITION OF CEREMONIES WITH THE TRADITION OF DOCTRINES. ADDITIONAL RE- MARKS ON THE MISAPPREHENSION OF TERMS IN REGARD TO TRADITION IN GENERAL. OfR inquiries into the subject of Tradition have been hitherto confined to Tradition as a Rule of Faith. This Tradition, as we have already seen, is sometimes called the unwritten fVord of God \' at other times it is called the umviitten Doctrine *. At other times again it is called the traditionary Doctrine^. We have further seen, that the un- written Word, or Tradition as a Rule of Faith, is ' Verbum Dei non scriptum. Bellarmine's fourth book on " The Word of God," which relates wholly to Tradition, is entitled De Verbo Dei non scripto. * Doctrina non scripta. It is so called by Bellarmine. See above Chap. I. Notes 2, 3- 3 Doctrina tradita. It is so called in the theological Lec- tures given at Maynooth. See the treatise De Ecclesia Christi, p. 397, 398. 1 2 8 Comparative l^iew of the Chap.VII. compounded of the divine and the apostolical tra- ditions *. We have seen also, that, beside the divine and apostolical traditions, which constitute Tradition as a Rule of Faith, there is a third kind, stated both by Bellarmine, and by the author of the treatise De Ecclesiu Christi, which is called ecclesiastical Tradition, or the Tradition of the Church^. The two former kinds, having been fully considered in the four first chapters, our attention must now be directed to the third kind. As our sixth Article, with the tiventieth and twenty first, relate to the two former kinds, so our thirtyfourth Article has reference to the third kind. An inquiry therefore into the principles, on which the Church of England has acted, in regard to Ceremo7iies, must commence with an examination of that Article. Article XXXIV. OF THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH. It is not necessary, that Traditions and Cere- monies be in all places one, or utterly like ; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and meiis manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's JFord. IVhosoever through his private judgement, ivilUngly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditiofis and Cei'emonies of the Church, which be not repugttant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly {that " See Chap. I. Note 11. ' IIl and wine. It is an act of /rir/rhas due to llie founder of that holy Sacrament A C HAP. VII. Churdtes of England and Rome. 1 37 11. These general remarks on the Ceremonies adopted by the Church of England, must suffice for at whose very name St. Paul declares (Phil. ii. 10.) thatevery knee should bow. Surely then it is not superstitious, to kneel during that most solemn act of devotion, when we partake of the bread and wine, in remembrance, that Christ died for us. Nor is it super- stition, to prefer at the Altar our prayers and tlianksgivings to Christ himself, who from his divine nature must be spiritvalli/, though not corporeally, omnipresent. If it is not superstitious therefore to pray to him on our knees in one place, it cannot be superstitious to pray to him on our knees in another. Unless then it is superstitious to pray at all on our knees, it is not superstitious to pray on our knees at the Altar. But no one can maintain the former position, without the impiety of imputing superstition to Christ himself. For Christ himself, in the very night, on which he had instituted that holy Sacrament, '* kneeled dotvn and prayed." (Luke xxii. 41 .) Indeed the act of kneehng is so congenial with those feelings of humility, which cannot fail to be excited in us, when we address ourselves to God, that it was common both to the Prophets of the Old Testament, and to the Apostles of the New (2 Chron. vi. 13. Ezra ix. 5. Daniel vi. 10. Acts ix. 40. XX. 36.) — Nor are we superstitious at the Sacrament o^ Bap- tism, when we use the sign of the Cross. In the figurative language of Scripture, we are told by Christ himself, that we must take up our Cross, and follow Hi7n, (Matth. xvi. 24.) In the same figurative language, we are told also by St. Paul, that the preaching of Christianity is the preaching of the Cross ; that the enemies of Christianity are the enemies of the Cross ; that persecution for Christianity is persecution for the Cross; and that our glory in Christianity is our glory in the Cross (1 Cor. i. 18. Phil. iii. 18. Gal. vi. 12. 14.) Since then both Christ himself, and his Apostle St. Paul, have represented the Cross as the very badge of Christianity, it js surely an appropriate Ceremony, when persons are admitted into follotoship with Christ, as they are at baptism, to express by the sign of the Cross, that the badge of Christianity is conferred on the persons so admitted. Kthis is su- perstitious, it is superstitious, when we are admitted to an order of mere 138 Comparative View of the Chap. VII. the present occasion, as we cannot enter into a par- ticular comparison of its Ceremonies with the Cere- monies of the Church oi Rome. A comparison of our Articles with the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent enabled us to enter, with the great- est minuteness, into the subject of Doctrines. But ourtwenty-fourtli Article, which relates to " speaking " in the Congregation in such a tongue, as the people *' understandeth," is the only Article relating to mere Ceremonies, which is directed against any particular practice of the Church of Rome. The thirty-fourth Article, as we have seen, is (\\\\\.q general^ and explains only the principles, on which the Church of England has acted in regard to Cere- monies. Equally general is that part of the Preface to our Liturgy, which is entitled, " Of Ceremonies, why some should be abolished, others retained." Indeed, if we entered into a particular detail of the were human institution, to receive the badge of that order. Nay it is superstitious, in an act of reconciliation, to give the right hand nffellowship. — Lastly, with respect to the use of the Ring in marriage, it is simply a token of honour, of which we find various examples in Scripture itself. When Pharaoh proposed to confer a mark of honour on Joseph, he " took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand," (Gen. xli. 42.) In like manner Ahasuerus " took his ring from his hand and gave it to Haman;" and when Mordecai had found favour in liis sight, " the king " took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it " to Mordecai," (Esther iii. 10. viii. 2.) Again, in the parable of the prodigal son, the father ordered on his return, as a token of regard and favour, a ring to be put upon his hand, (Luke xv. 22.) Wo have therefore the authority of Scripture for using a ring as a token oj honour. And that nothing more was mejuit in the marriage service, is evident from the form of words nith which the giving of thu ring is accompanied. Chap. VII. Churches of England and Rome. 1 3p Cere?no?iies employed by the Church of Rome, it would require a volume of itself, and swell the examination of that single subject to a size altogether disproportioned to its relative importance. The remaining part of this Chapter therefore shall be directed to an inquiry of much greater moment, namely an inquiry into the consequences of con- founding the Tradition of Doctrines with the Tra- dition of Ceremonies, as also with otiier Traditions, from which it is not always distinguished. For it is entirely owing to such confusion, that the Church of England is often represented as similar to the Church of Rome, when in fact it is totally different. If men confound the Tradition of Ceremonies with the Tradition of Doctrines, they may argue from our thirty-fourth Article, that our sixth Article must be false. For, as our sixth Article rejects all Doctrines, which are not founded on the authority of Scripturey and our thirty-fourth Article does not reject all Ce?^' monies, which have no other foundation than Tra^ dition, the advocates of the Church of Rome, need only overlook the difference between these two kinds of Tradition, and it immediately follows, that, as Tradition is Tradition, so the admission of it in 07ie sense is the admission of it in another. But if Tradition is not rejected by our Church, they reason- ably infer, that the rejection of Tradition cannot constitute the mtal principle of Protestantism. Now it is a direct contradiction of our sixth Article to say, that the Church of England does not reject Tradition as a Rule of Faith ; and it is obvious that no otJicr Tradition can be meant, when we speak of the rejection of it, as the vital principle of Pro- 140 Comparative Viexv of the Chap. VII. testantisni ". Nor is a confusion of terms sufficient for the purpose, without the aid of a correspondent omismn; namely of the word ''authority." For the Church of England rejects the authority of Tradition, as well in regard to CeremonieSy as in regard to Doctrines'K Whether Ceremonies be o " See Chap. IV. Note 6. »» This position has been fully proved in the preceding section of this Chapter. — I take this opportunity of noticing a very ex- traordinary misapplication of what I said about Tradition in my Letter to Mr. Gandolphy. Speaking of the difference between the Romanists and the Protestants, in regard to the foundations of their faith, I observed at p. 1 1. " The one party appealed to the •' Bible and Tradition : the other party rejected the authority of « Tradition and appealed to the Bible alone." And again at p. 16. I said, *' You will not be able to bring satisfactory evi- ** dence, that we have inherited from the Apostles any other Doc-' •' trines, than those, which are recorded in their genuine writings, *' as contained in the Netv Testament. Hence it was that our " Reformers rejected the authority of Tradition ; and this very *♦ rejection is that, which constitutes the vital principle of the ** Reformation," When I said therefore, that our Reformers " re- •• jectedthc authority of Tradition and appealed to the Bible alone," it was manifest, that no other Tradition, either was, or even could be meant, than the Tradition, which to the Church of Rome is a Rule of Faith. For there is no other Tradition of which the authority is capable of being compared with the authority of Scripture ; whereas the authority of this Tradition is alivays com- pared with the authority of Scripture. For the latter is called the JVritlen Word, the former the Unwritten Word : and both of them, in the Church of Rome, have erjual authority. No reader therefore, who refected on what he read, could possibly imagine, that I was speaking of a Tradition of Ceremonies, and attempt to confute the assertion by an appeal to the thirty fourth Article, But though the Tradition of Doctrines, and not the Tradition of Ceremonies, was at that time the subject of inquiry, the assertion, which I there made is still applicable to the Tradition also of Ceremonies, unless the word " authority,'^ which 1 used in both of Chap. VII. Churches of England and Rome. 141 ancient or modern, the Church of England re- ceives, or rejects them, entirely at its own discretion. We should be careful then to avoid the confusion, which must necessarily arise, if we mistake the source, from which Ceremonies are derived, for the prmcipk, on which they are received. The term " Traditio Ecclesia,'' is further applied by the Church of Rome to the ceremony, or cere- monies of Ordination ; and the term is so used in the Decree relating to the Sacramentum Ordinis^ made at the twenty-third Session of the Council of Trent. But then it is to be observed, that this very Decree, in addition to the Orders of Priest and Deacon, enumerates the five Orders of Sub-deacon, Acolyte, Exorcist, Lector, and Ostiary ; for the lowest of which the clerical tonsure is required. It must be further observed, that the appeal to Tradition is confined to the five last-mentioned orders ; and that the authority of Scripture is quoted for the Orders of Priest and Deacon '♦. Since then the five lower of those passages, be suppressed when the assertion is repeated. As I notice this two-fold misapphcation, merely to prevent a recurrence of such errors, it is sufficient to state them without mentioning names. '4 In the second Chapter of this Decree is the following passage, " Non solum de Sacerdotibus, sed et de Diaconis sacra: litercB apertam mentionem faciunt ; et quae maxime in illorum ordinatione attendenda sunt, gravissirais verbis docent. Et in ipso EcclesicB initio sequentium ordinum nomina, Subdia- coni scilicet, Acolyti, Exorcistoe, Lectoris, et Ostiarii in usu fu- isse cognoscuntur, P. CLiv. And tlie seventeenth Chapter of this Decree accordingly provides, ut sanctorum ordinum a Diaconatu ad Ostiariatwn functiones ab Apostoloruni temporibus in Eccle- sia I4fi Comparative Hew of the Chap. VII. Orders are i^ejected by the Church of England, and only the two higher Orders are retained^ the ad- vocates of the Church of Rome, when they contend that our Orders depend upon Tradition as well as theirs, make use of an argument, which directly conti^adicts what the Council of Trent has admitted. Again it has been asserted, that the institution of the Christian Sabbath, or the keeping tlie Jirst day of the week holy, instead of the seventh, is founded on Tradition. And the author of the treatise De Ecdesid Chiisti has quoted it as one of the apostolical traditions. The institution there- fore of the Christian Sabbath is represented, as having its foundation in Tradition as a Rule of Faith, that is the Umvritten JVord of God. Now one should really suppose from the representation, that the institution had no foundation in tlie JFritten Word. But it is evident from Acts xx. 7. and 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2. that the practice of the primitive Christians to assemble, for the purpose of worship, on the first day of the week, in commemoration of Christ's resurrection, had the sanction of St. Paul himself And since this is recorded in the JlYitten Word, what necessity is there for an appeal to the Lhixvritten Word ? Another example is given by Bellarmine, which has been repeated by every advocate of the Church of Rome to the present time. This example is Infant Baptism, which Bellarmine represents as sia laudabiliter rcceptae, et plurimis in locls aliquamdiu inter- inissa, in usum juxta sacros Canoncs revoccntur. P. ctxv. Chap. VII. Churches of England and Rome. 143 an apostolical tradltion^^ , Indeed the Council of Trent has itself appealed to apostolical tradition for the baptism of infants '^. Now from this example it is argued, either that the Church of England, notwithstanding its professions in the sixth Article, does not reject Tradition as a Rule of Faith ; or that it acts with inconsisteiicy^ in returning the Sacrament of Baptism under the same form, as the Church of Rome. But both these charges are at once refuted by our twenty-seventh Article. For this Article is so far from resting the practice of Infant Baptism on the authority of Tradition^ that it places that practice on a totally different footing. " The Baptism of young children (says this Article) " is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as " most agreeable with the institution of Christ •^." Where then is the inconsistency of our Church in respect to Infant Baptism ? Or how does this ex- ample prove, that the Church of England acknoxv' ledges the authority of Tradition ? But there is another point of view, from which this example may be examined. When Bellarmine represents Infant Baptism as an apostolical tradition, '* Parvulos baptizandos, vocatur traditio apostolica non scripta, De Verbo Dei, Lib. IV. Cap. 2. '* Ex traditione Apostolorum etiam parvuli, qui nihil pecca- torum in semet ipsis adhuc committere potuerunt ideo in reniis- sionem peccatorum veraciter baptizantur, ut in eis regenera- tione mundetur, quod generatione contraxerunt. P. xxiv. " In what respects the practice of infant baptism is " most agreeable with the institution of Christ," it would be foreign to our present purpose to inquire : nor can it be necessary, as the agreement has been already shewn by those, who have professed- ly written on this subject. 144- Comparbtive Jlezo of the Chat. Vlf* he represents it, according to his own principles, as a Doctjine. For the apostolical traditions are ingredients in what he himself calls Doctrina non scripta'*. Indeed there is one respect, in which a Sacrament muat he included under Doctrines ; namely, when we consider it in reference to its inward and spiritual grace. Hence the Council of Trent, when it appealed to the Tradition of the Apostles (Traditio Apostolorum) in favour of Infant Baptism, spake in express terms of the cjjkacij of that Sacrament, which is necessaril}' a matter of Doctrine ''. But as a Sacrament has likewise an outward and visible sign, the administration of it may in this respect be considered as a Ccrcmoni/ of the Church. Since then the Church of England uses its own discretion in regard to CeremmieSj though it invariably rejects Doctrines, which are founded only on Tradition, we may very consistently take into consideration, that the ceremony of baptizing infants has prevailed from the earliest ages of Christianity. And having adopted the practice on the gj^oiind of its being " most agreeable \vitli the institution of Christ," we may, in perfect conformity with the principles of our Church, consider the antiquity of the practice as an additional reason for our adopting it. For the Tradition of Ceremonies is a very different thing from the Tradition of Doctrines. The Tradition of the latter is oral Tradition, and going from mouth to mouth must be perpetually subject to alteration. But the Tra- " See Note 2. to this Chapter. Tlic term Doctrina tradita has a similar meaning. '* Sl'c the preceding Note I'i. Chap. VII. Churches of England arid Rome. 145 dition of the former is (?c«/«/* Tradition, and may be preserved unaltered, through a succession of ages, though never committed to writing. It is however of no importance on the present occasion, whether the distinction between the doctrinal and the cere- monial part of the Sacrament be considered, or not. For the Clmrch of England in its own official declaration on the adoption of Infant Baptism, has left the argument of Tradition entirely out of the question. It has assigned a totally different reason, and therefore cannot be charged with an acknow- ledgment of the authority, ascribed to Tradition by the Church of Rome *^ If we further inquired into all the other examples, in which the term Tradition either has been, or might be, employed, for the purpose of proving a similarity between the Churches of England and Rome, the inquiry would hardly ever terminate. For the term " Tradition" may be applied to any thing zvhatever which is communicated from one person to another. Unless therefore we distinguish the Tradition of Doctrines, or Tradition as a Rule of Faith, from all other kinds of Tradition, there will be no etid of the confusion, which must arise from arguments about Tradition. And since it has been fully proved in the first, the third, and the fourth, chapters of this Work, that the Tradition, of which the rejection constitutes the characteristic difference between the Churches of England and Rome, is ^ The confession of Augsburg appeals likeivise to the autho- rity of Scripture, and not to the authority of Tradition, for infant-baptism. See the ninth Article of that Confession. K 146 Comparat'voe View of the Chap. VH. that Tradition, which to the Church of Rome is a Rule of Faith, we may be certain, without pre- vious examination, that, whenever an instance can be alledged, in which the two Churches agree about Tradition, that the term is used in some other seiise. It will be sufficient therefore to notice two or three examples, on which the advocates of the Church of Rome lay the greatest stress. It is said, that if our Church rejects the authority of Tradition, it rejects what is necessary to prove the authenticity of the New Testament. And on this occasion there is frequently quoted the well- known saying of Augustine, " Ego Evangelio non crederim, nisi me commoveret Ecclesiae auctoritas." Now according to our twentieth Article, the Church is ** a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ." Suppose then, that this declaration be applied to St. Paul's Epistles, for instance. When we are about to establish their authenticity, we trace the quotations from them in ecclesiastical writers, from the present age upwards till we come to writers so near to the time when St. Paul lived, that the Epistles ascribed (o him, could not have been falsely ascribed, with- out their knowing it. In this sense the Church is a Keeper and a Witness of Holy Writ: and to the evidence for authenticity, which we thus obtain, the title of *' Tradition" is sometimes applied, because the evidence has been handed down to us from the earliest ages. But this is a Tradition of Tcstimoyiy, and has no connection whatever W'ith a Tradition of Doctrine. And it is so far from distinguishing the Church of Rome, or indeed any Church zvhateve?', that it is applied to establish the authenticity of Chap. Vli. Churches of England and Rome. 147 ancient writings in general". It is moreover a kind of Tradition, whicii is applied to the JVritten JVordy whereas Tradition, as a Rule of Faith, applies ex- clusively to the Umvritten fVord. Another argument for the similarity of the two Churches has been drawn from a confusion of the Intei'pretatio tradita with the Doctrina tradita. The interpreters of the Bible, like all other interpreters, copy occasionally from the works of their predecessors. The commentators of the eighteenth century have drawn from commentators of the seventeenth cen- tury ; those of the seventeenth from those of the sixteenth ; those again of the sixteenth from those of the fifteenth ; and so on to the most a?icient com- mentators. The consequence is, that if we compare a collection of aticicnt commentaries, such as may be seen in a Catena Fatrum^ with a collection of modern commentaries, such as may be seen in Pole's Sj/7iopsis, we shall find that the expositions of many passages are common to both collections.' These expositions therefore, having been handed down from commentator to commentator, are con- sidered as a sort of Tradition. But in order to distinguish the Tradition of interpretations from the *' If we undertake to prove the authenticity of the Epistlea ascribed to Cicero, or to Pliny, we must use a similar process tp that, which is employed in establishing the authenticity of the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul. The latter indeed are inspired^ whereas the former are not. But this makes no difference, whea we are concerned only with the question, whether a work is written by the author to whom it is ascribed. For the inspiration of the sacred writings is a foct, to which no Church, whether ancient, or modern, can bear xdtness. It is a fact, of which no human observation can take cognisance. It lies beyond the reach of human evidence ; it can be proved only by divine testimony, and consequently by Scrijiture alone. 148 Comparative View of the Chap. VII, Tradition of Doctrines, writers on systematic The- ology, have given the name ofTraditio^erwewew^/ca to the former, and the name of Traditio dogynatica to the latter**. The same distinction is made by Bishop Burnet in his Exposition of the sixth Article. He there says, " We on the contrary assert, that " the Scriptures are a complete Rule of Faith, and " that the whole Christian Religion is contained in " them, and no where else. And, although we " make great use of T?^aditio?i, especially that, which " is most ancient and nearest to the source, for " a clear under stayiduig of the Scriptures, yet as to " matters of Faith, we reject all oral Tradition, as " an incompetent mean of conveying down Doctrines " to us, and we refuse to receive any Doctrine, that " is not either expressly contained in Scripture, or " clearly proved from it *^" But, if suppressing the distinction, which is here made between the Traditio hermeiieutica, and the Traditio dogmatica, men argue, as if the admission of the one implied the admission of the other, they may argue to an agreement between the Churches of England and Rome. But even then their argument is incon- clusive. For wlien the Church of Rome employs Tra.dition for the interpretation of Scripture, it 'employs it as something, which has the same authority with Scripture, and consequently as an authority, from which it has not the power to depart. But when the Cliurch of Etigland receives interpretations, which have been handed down from the early ages of Christianity, it receives them at ** See Docderlein Institutio Theologi Christiam^ torn. I. p. 181—187. " Page 72. ed. 1699. fol. Ghap.VII. Churches of England and Rome, 149 its own discretion^ and not as a matter of obligation. It considers them as conveying merely the opinions of the Commentators themselves, in regard to the sense of the passages explained ; and not as trans- mitting any thing divine or apostolical. The inter- pretations, which have received the sanction of antiquity^ are so far indeed entitled to our respect. But we deny^ that the interpretations even of the most ancient Fathers afford a criterion, by which the interpretations of our Church are to be tidied. Indeed no one, who was acquainted with the fanciful interpretations of Justin Martyr, the forced inter- pretations of Irenaeus, or the allegorical interpre- tations of Origen, would conclude, that interpre- tations were necessarily to be recommended, be- cause they originated in the second and third cen- turies. There is only one more instance, of which it can be necessary to take any notice ; and that is the strange comparison of the English Liturgy with Romish Tradition. If our Liturgy be compared with any thing belonging to the Church of Rome, it must be compared with the Romaii Missal, from which it was partly derived. But with Tradition, in whatever sense the term be taken, it has no similarity whatever. It is true, that our Liturgy and the Articles form a kind of Regula Fidei, when this term is used to denote Summary of Doctrines, or Formulary of Faith; in which sense the term is used by the most ancient writers of the Latin Church**. But when this term is applied by the ** Regula Fidei is then synonymous with Summa Fidei, Hence ISO Comparative View of the Chap. VII modern Romanists to Tradition^ it is applied in a totally diffci'ent sense *^ For it then denotes not merely a Rule, by which the Doctrines of one Church are distinguished from those of another, and which are founded solely on Scripturej but Hence Tertullian applies it to a Summary, or Formulary of Faith, which contains nearly the same Articles, as are contained in the Formulary, called the Apostles' Creed. In this treatise De prcescriptione Hcereticortun, cap, 13, Tertullian describes it in the following words, •' Regula est autem Fidei, ut jam hinc quid *' defendamus profiteamur, ilia scilicet qua creditur ; Unum " omnino Deqm esse, nee alium prseter mundi conditorem, qui *' universa de nihilo produxerit, per Verbum suum primo om- ^* nium demjssum; Id Verbum fihum ejus appellatum, in nomine *• Dei varie visum a Patriarchis, in Prophetis semper auditum, ** postremo delatum, ex spiritu Patris Dei et virtute, in virginem " Mariam, carnem factum in utero ejus, et ex ea natum egisse ♦• Jesum Christum : exinde praedicasse novam legem, et novam *♦ promissionem regni ccelorum ; virtutes fecisse ; fixum cruci ; " tertia dip resurrexisse ; in ccelos ereptum sodisse ad dexterara " Patris; misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti, qui credentes ** agat ; venturum cum claritate, ad sumendos sanctos in vitai ■" xternae et promissorum coelestium fructum, et ad profanos *' adjudicandos igni perpetuo, facta utriusque partis rcsuscisa- *' tione, cum carnis restitutione.'' TerluUiani Op. p. 235. ed Bigaltii. We see then, that Tertullian gives the title of Regula Fidei to the Articles of Faith, which were then received by the I^atin Church ; and which contained nothing in addition to the Articles founded on Scripture. It is true, that Tertullian ob- jected to the perversions, which the Heretics at that time made of Scripture, But his oxm appeals were so frequent, that the Judex Scripturarum sacrarum, ut citanlur a TertuUiano, occupies in the edition of Rigaltius, forty-nine folio pages. *' Hence the celebrated Lutheran Divine, Dr. John Gerhard, who was professor of Divinity at Jena, about sixty yeai-s after Luther's death, says, ♦' Kequirit Stapletonus |rwer'. The authority therefore, * The analogy, which the judicial authority of the Church bears in this country to the judicial authority of the StatCj holds good in their different relations. Both of them are employed in a twofold capacity ; they are employed either in interpreting the law, or in administering the law. In all things relating to the interpretation of the law, the parallel lies between the Convo- cation, and an Assembly of the twelve Judges. The former meets to interpret the law of God : the latter meets to interpret the law of man. In all things relating to the administration of the law the parallel lies between the ecclesiastical courts and the temporal courts. As the latter administer the law in civil con- cerns, so the former administer the law in controversies, not only of discipline, but also o^ faith. When the authority of the Church is exercised on the interpretation of the divine law, the authority neither is, nor can be, confided to any but the Chrgy. But the administration of law in the ecclesiastical courts, is fre- quently (and indeed alvoays in the higher courts) confided to lay- men. Now the exercise of Church-authority by laymen cannot possibly be construed into an extension of spiritual power. — Further, if we consider our religion in reference to its establish- ment, the analogy holds good again. The members of the Con- vocation, which framed the thirty-nine Articles, were concerned only with the question ; What form of Christianity was most con- sonant with Scripture? Their sole object was to distinguish true religion fromjalse religion, and to state what they believed to be the true religion in the form of Articles of Religion. But it was not in the power of the Convocation to establish the religion de- fined by the Liturgy and Articles. The establishment of a re- ligion consists in a provision being made for the maintenance of its ministers by the law of the land. Where the contributions for the Clergy are mere voluntary contributions, there is no establish- ment. But it is only the law of the land, which can etiforce the payment, either of civil or of ecclesiastical contributions. The truth of a religion therefore, ,and the establishment of a religion are two totally distinct things. The Convocation was concerned with 170 Comparative View of the Chap. VIIL which the Church of England exercises in con- troversies of faith, is exercised on the same principlCy and carried only to tlie same extent, as it is by the Protestant Dissenters themselves. with t\ie former, and with the former alone. The Parliament was concerned with the latter^ and the latter fl/o?ie. As the Convocation was competent to decide on the truth of our religion, but had no power to give it a civil establishment, the Parliament had the power of giving it a civil establishment, though the province of Parliament did not extend to a determination ofits^rwM. But even the supreme civil authority in a state cannot always establish a. religion, however true that religion may be. If, for instance, the great majority of the English nation had, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, still resolved to remain members of the Church of Royne, the statute of the First of Elizabeth, (by which the be- nefices, or public funds assigned for the maintenance of the ministers of religion, were transferred from the Clergy, who ac- knowledged the Pope to be the head of the Church, to the Cler- gy who acknowledged the Queen as such) either would not hava been made, or could not have been enforced without danger of an insurrection. But it was that statute, which established our re- ligion in the time of Queen Elizabeth ; as it was a similar Statute, which again established our religion in the time of Charles II. So true is the assertion, that the establishment of a religion in any country must depend on the opinion, which is entertained of it by the great majority in that country : where majority denote* not merely a majority of numbers, but a majority of power and influence. Thus in Ireland the majority of power and influence is certainl)' Protestant, though the majority of numbers is not so. At the same time we must consider the established Church in Ireland as an integral part of the United Church ; and, fortu- nately for the Protestants \n Ireland, the Komanists of the United Kingdom are «till in the minority, as well of numbers, as of in- fluence.— Since then the authority, which establishes a religion, is quite distinct from the authority, which judges of its /;/////, Fince also the authority, by which ecclesiastical concerns are ad' ministered, is again a distinct authority, they/«//c/V;/ and the lerrish' live powers, in all things concerning the established religion, aro no less detached from each other, tlum tlu'y arc in civil concerns. Chap. VIII. Churches of England and Rome, 1 71 III. If indeed the Church of England went beyond the simple act of removing those, who had violated the terms of communion, it would do more than is necessary for its own preservation. For the welfare of a religious Society, in things relating to faithy requires nothing more, than that they, who counteract it, should be made to withdraw from it. There the jurisdiction of every Church, in matters of faith, should cease : and there the jurisdiction of the established Church, in matters of faith, does cease. In the faith, and worship, of other Societies it does not presume to interfere : but recognises, to the utmost extent, the right of every man to worship God according to his conscience. Nor are even its ozvn members compelled to continue members against their will ; though of necessity it requires a com- pliance with its rules from those, who choose to remain in its communion *. It says not with the Church of Rome, " You have neither the liberty to " forsake the Church, nor to vary from the esta- *' blishtd creed:' No ! The language which the Church of England holds is this, " We have pre- " scribed a formulary of faith, which we believe to be *' in all respects conformable to the Word of God, " as declared in Holy Scripture. Persuaded ourselves, " that our religion is true, we gladly receive, and *' cordially embrace, all those, who are willing to *^ partake in our faith and worship. But, as our *' welfare depends on the observance of our rules, we " e.vpect such observance from our members in *' general, and from our authorised ministers in * See the Appendix, Note B. 172 Comparative View of the Chap. VIII. " particular." On the other hand, if at any time there should be found among its members a person, M'ho, on mature reflection, thought the creed erro- neous, which he had once received, the Church of England would say, " Though we lament the evils " of religious dissension, we own the blessings of ** religious liberty. If then you can no longer cun- ^^ form to our Creed, and the continuance in our ".communion would be a restraint on the exercise " of your private judgment, you are at liberty to " exchange our Society for one, which is more con- " genial with your own opinions. We shall neither " throvv impediments in the way of your departure; *' nor follow you, as an apostate, with pains and pe- " nalties, when you have withdraxvn from our com- ^ To prevent mistakes on this subject, it is necessary to ob- serve, that, though the Church of England acknowledges the right of withdrawing from its communion, if men cannot con- scientiously remain in it, this does not imply an admission, that there is no sin in Schisniy or a separation from the established Church, in cases where no plea of conscience can be urged. The very preamble to the Toleration Act, passed in the first year of William III, begins with the words, " Forasmuch as some ease *' to sc}-tipulous consciences in the exercise of religion may be an *• effectual means to unite their Majesties' protestant subjects in *' interest and affection, &c." But as no human judgment can determine men's motives for separation, the question, whether they are urged by conscientious motives, or by motives of a dif- ferent description, is properly left to be settled between them- selves and their Maker. The liberty therefore to withdraw from the established Church is, so far as human authority goes, open in- discriminately to all men. liut thoy who xmntonli/ withdraw from the estal)lished Church must not forget, that they will hereafter be ameiuible to a higher tribunal for the evil consequences of nnne- Cessarif divisions among members of the same Society. This ob- scrvatioft Chap. VIII. Churches of England and Rome. 173 Suppose however, that a member of a religious Society disapproves, on the one hand, of its Jormu" lary of faith, and yet, on the other hand, is un- willing to relinquish its communion. What is to be servation particularly applies to those Methodists, who professing a belief in our Doctrines, and, not objecting to our ceremonies, yet worship in separate conventicles, in many of which at this present time the service is conducted precisely in the same manner, as in the Churches of the establishment. — But I request the reader not to misunderstand me, when I speak of the sin of jschism. There cannot be a doubt, that they, who object to the doctrine or discipline of the established Church, have a right to secede from it ; and moreover, that this right is founded on the same principle, as that, by which the Church of England seceded from the Church of Rome. If we say, that we had substantial reasons for separation from the Church of Rome, but that the Dissenters have not equal reason for separating from us, we say what I believe is perfectly true. But then we must not make our opinion a rule for the conduct of those who dissent from us. For if the Church, from which the separation is made, be the judge of its propriety, our oim, Reformation will be condemned. Since then we judged for ourselves, when we seceded from the Church of Rome, we must allow others to judge for themselves, when they secede from the Church of England. Indeed unless the persons, whose consciences are concerned in the decision, have the privilege of deciding on the question of separation, their consciences are subjected to the will of others, and the right of private judgment is destroyed. There is no sin therefore in sepa- ration from an established church, where the plea of conscience can be urged. But since in every Society, whether civil or re- ligious divisions among its members are always injurious, and may be ultimately fatal, iheauthors of such divisions are responsible for the consequences, when created voithout necessity. They are not indeed responsible to wcw, who is unable to penetrate into motives. But they are responsible to God, who searches all hearts ; who knows whether the plea of conscience operates or not ; and if it does not operate, will punish the sin of Schism. For, as, on the gne baud, no evil arising from the abuse of religious liberty can be 174 Comparative T'lew of the Chap. VIIL done (it may be asked) in such a case. To this ques- tion there is only one answer to be given. As he cannot expect, that the formulary of faith, approved by the general body, should be surrendered to the will of an individual, he must resolve, as long as he remains in communion with that Society, to leave its formulary of faith unmolested. For, if he is so inconsistent, as to continue in communion with it, and yet openly act in contravention of its laws, he must expect, that what he ought to have done pi^e- t^iouslj/ of his own accord, he will be afterwards compelled to do by the Society at large. If it be further objected, that such compulsory acts are in- consistent with the right of private judgment in matters of faith, I answer, that whether the act of removal be voluntary, or compulsory, he is in cither case withdrawn from a Society, which, by pro- fessing a faith, to which he objects, had served only as a restraint on his private judgment. In either case therefore he obtains the full enjoyment of the right, about which he had previously complained. Lastly, it may be objected, that, as the authority of our Church in controversies oi faith, is now exer- cised chiefly, if not solely, on the Clei^gy of the establishment, the exercise of that authority will aflfect not only their pc/'sons, but their ecclesiastical property. And is it consistent (it may be urged) with those principles, on which a religious Society be compared with the evil of a preventative, which enslaves the conscience, so, on the other hand, when the plea of conscience docs not operate, there is no inconvenience, which an individual can sustain from continued communion with an established Church, to be compared with the evils arising from secession *. • Sec ibe Ai)ijendix, Note CX Chap. VIII. Churches of England and Rome, 175 should be governed, to punish a man for his opinions by the confiscation of \\\s property ? Has it not been already admitted, that the welfare of a religious Society, in matters of faith, requires nothing more, than that the persons, who counteract it, should be made to withdraxv from it? Now, if the Church could confiscate private property, as a punishment for heresy J it would have a power, which no tribunal on earth, whether ecclesiastical or civil, should be allowed to possess. It would be a power, of the very same detestable kind, as that, which the In- quisition employs on the person of a heretic. But the emoluments of office are inseparable from the office itself. And those emoluments are only so far our own, as we perforin the conditions, on which the emoluments were granted. In the Church of Eng- land, no man is admitted to a benefice, except on the condition, piihlicly and soleimdy expressed^ that he will conform to the Liturgy, and Articles. But, if after this solemn engagement he refuses to con- form, he voids tlie contract by his own act and deed. And, if he loses his benefice, he loses only that, to which he had forfeited the right. On the very same principle the Protestant Dissenters themselves deprive their ministers of their office, and consequently of its emoluments, when their ministers violate the terms of that communion, to which they belong. Nor is it in religious Societies alone, that conditional emoluments are forfeited by a violation of the con- ditions, on which they were granted. It is the same also both in civily and in military Societies, By a transgression of the laws, to which an office or commission implies obedience, the office or com- 176 Comparative View of the Chap. VIII. mission is vacated, and its emoluments are con- sequently lost. The plea of conscience for a departure from the law is very inconsistently alleged, especially in a religious Society. If a man is urged by his con- science to violate the terms, on which he was ad- mitted to his office, that same conscience, in order to be consistent, should urge him also to relinquish its emoluments. For it is downright dishonesty, it is dishonesty of the grossest kind, to receive the pay of a Society, and yet act in opposition to its welfare. Upon the whole then we may conclude, that the Church of England carries its authority no further, than is absolutely necessary for its own preservation. It requires, on the one hand, a compliance with its rules from its members in general, and its ministers in particular ; but as no man is compelled to remain a member, he may exercise his private judgment in the investigation of its Doctrines, and withdraw from its communion, if he believes that its Doctrines are fklse. We allow therefore to others the privilege, which we claimed for ourselves, in withdrawing from the Church oi Rome. And since they, who withdraw from us^ continue the exercise of that very authority, to which they had been previously subjected in the Church of England, our Church stands exculpated from the charge of inconsistency and a departure from the principles of the Reformation. And when the third proposition is proved, which will be done in the following Chapter, the ditibrcnce between the Churches of England and Rome, in the exercise of Church-authority will appear in^ the clearest light. C HA p. IX. Churches of England and Rome. 177 CHAP. IX. PROOF, THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME NOT ONLY CARRIES ITS AUTHORITY FURTHER, THAN IS NECESSARY FOR ITS OWN PRESERVATION, BUT THAT ITS AUTHORITY IS EXERCISED IN SUCH A MANNER, AS TO EXTINGUISH THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT IN ITS OWN MEMBERS, AND TO TRAMPLE ON THE RIGHTS OF ALL OTHER CHURCHES. JLt appears from the preceding Chapter, that the welfare of a religious Society, in matters of faith requires nothing more, than that they, who violate its Articles, be made to withdraw from its com- munion. And it is equally apparent, that a Society, which has ?20t the power of removing determined contraveners has not the power, which is necessary for its own preservation. On these principles, of which the truth is indisputable, the Church of Eng- land exercises its authority in controversies of faith. Every Society has the undoubted right, to take such measures, as are requisite for its own welfare, pro- vided they interfere not with the rights of other Societies. But if laws are enacted, or even if prin- ciples are admitted, which its own welfare does not require, there will be an unnecessary and therefore an unjust J diminution of natural right. Whenever 2Vl 178 Comparative Vierv of the Chap. IX. men unite themselves in a Society, whether civil or religious, a />o;Y/ow of that freedom, which they would otherwise possess, is unavoidably surrendered, in exchange for the benefits, which they derive from communion with that. Society. To a certain extent therefore the will of the indiiidual must yield to the uili of the body. But, as that Society is the best constituted, in which the general welfare is pro- moted with the smallest share of individual sacrifice, the latter should never be required, if the former can be promoted without it. Now as the objects of a religious Society are faith and worship, and every man has a natural right to worship God according to his conscience, the surrender of this right can never be deemed necessary to the purpose, for which a religious Society is formed. If an individual member of such a Society can no longer con- scientiously partake in its faith, or worship, the welfare of the Society is so tar from requiring his continuance in that communion, that this very con- tinuance would serve only to destroy its harmony. Consequently there is no pretence for compelling a man to remain a member of a religious Society against his will. And with respect to the coji- sequences of such compulsion, it is obvimis, that conscience w'ould thereby be enslaved, and the right of private judgment altogether extinguishL-d. As long as we are at liberty to withdraw from a religious Society, whenever we disapprove of its princijilts, we possess the right of exercising private judgment in matters of faith and worship. Indeed the very act of withdrawing from the Society is an act, in which that right is exercised. Chap* IX. Churches of England and Rome, 179 But if the Church of England thus allows the right of private judgment, this right is absolutely refused by the Church of Rome. For the latter not only requires obedience from all who continue in its communion, but prohibits a departure from that communion. And this prohibition is carried so far, that the Church of Rome claims the power of ex- ercising spiritual jurisdiction over those, who have ceased to be its members. Allegiance to the Church is considered in the same light, as allegiance to the State ; and apostates from the religion of Rome are regarded as rebels against their lawful Sovereign* The Council of Trent has formally declared, that the Church of Rome is the mother and mistiness of all Churches*; whence they who have deserted its standard, and have gone over to other ChurcheSj are still declared amenable to the Church of Rome. Accordingly we find in the Roman Catechism, published by order of Pius V, that heretics and schismatics, though no longer members of the Church of Rome, are still " in the poiver of the " Church, as persons to be called by it to judgment, " punished, and doomed by anathema to damnation*.'* And this claim, thus officially made in the Roman Catechism, is urged at this very day in the theo- logical lectures, which arp given in the College of Maynooth. For in the treatise De Ecclesid Christij ' Ecclesia Romana, quae omnium ecclesiarum mater est et magistra, Sfc. P. Liii. See also the Trent Confession of Faith, quoted in Note 21. to Chap. VI. * Haeretici vero et schismatici, qui ab Ecclesia desciverunt, &c. Non negandum tamen quin in Ecclesiae potestate sint, ut qui ab ea in judicium vocentur, puniantur, et anathemate dam- sentur. Catechismus Romanus, p. 78. ed. 1587. M 2 180 Comparative flew of the Chap. IX. which contains the sum and substance of those Lectures, it is positively asserted, that " the Church " retains its jurisdiction over all Apostates, Heretics, " and Schismatics, though they no longer belong to " its body*." And the following is assigned as a reason^ why the Church of Rome claims juris- diction over those, who have ceased to be its mem- bers; namely, " that a General has the right of " inflicting severer punishments on those deserters " whose names have been erased from the muster- ** roll*." Now when a man has ceased to be mem- ber of a Society, whether it is religious, civil, or military, it is difficult to comprehend on what prin- ciple of justice or equity he can be considered as still amenable to the lazi^s of that Society. Nor is it true, that military punishment can be inflicted on those, whose names are erased from the regimental list. When deserters are punished, they are punish- ed as being still wewbers of the Society which in- flicts the punishment: they are punisiied for a vio- lation of the laws, which they have sworn to obey, and from which, without the consent of their supe- riors, they have no right to withdraw. But a religious Society has no analogy in this respect to one, that is purely military. If the metnbers of a military Society were at liberty to withdraw from it whenever they pleased, the very object, for which an army is ^ Kccleeia suam rctivet jurisdictionem in onines Apostatas, llatreticos, et Schismalicos, quanqiuuii ad illus corpus nonjam pcrtineant. P. SDl-. * Immediately after the words quoted in tlie preceding Note is added, Quemadmoduin dux militia- jus habet severiores pfrnas dccernendi adversus militem transfugani, qui ex albo niilitiw fuissct crasus. C HAP. IX. Churches of England and Rome. 1 8 1 collected, would at once be defeated. The necessity of the case itself therefore prevents the exercise of that liberty. But no such necessity operates in a religious Society, from which every member has a right to withdraw, as soon as his conscience forbids him to partake of its faith and worship. The spiri- tual tyranny of those, who govern the CJiurch of Rome, may find indeed support in such comparisons as that, which has been just stated : but the Church of Christ was founded for a very different purpose, than that of extending the power and influence of those, who direct it. Cut whether the reasoning of the Church of Ptome on this subject be valid, or futile, whether the jurisdiction thus claimed be well, or ill-defended, it is sufficient to know that the claim is made, and made by those very persons, whose sentiments we are especially concerned to ascertain. It may be urged indeed in answer to this claim of extended jurisdiction, that when a member of the Church of Rome is once become a Protestant, he has nothing further to apprehend from the juris- diction of that Church. lie may despise the appel- lations of Apostate and Heretic, and smile at the threat of punishment, which can no longer reach him. Now this argument implies, tliat the conversion takes place in a State, where Protestantism is pro^ tectcd, a protection not afforded in every State, where the Church of Rome claims jurisdiction. But let us take for granted, that the State ia both able and willing to protect those, avIio for conscience' sake change their religion ; let us consider the situation of the Romanists resident in Great Britain and Ireland, and thus we shall be enabled to appre- 182 Comparative View of the Chap. IX. ciate the influence of the Church of Rome over its own members, even when its spiritual authority is not aided by tempojrd power. When the authority claimed for the Church of Rome, both in the Roman Catechism and the Lectures at Maynooth, is inculcated into the niinds of men from their earliest years, they are deterred from ever attempting to exercise their private judgment in matters of faith. When the notion is once impressed, that if they should ever desert the Church, the Church would still retain its authority over them, unconditional submission is the natural consequence. To inquire into the grounds of their faith might lead them into inextricable difficulties. They might come to conclusions, which were different from the established creed : and thus they would be reduced to the dilemma, either of joining in a worship which their conscience condemned, or of being exposed to danger, if they worshipped as their conscience re- quired. Under such circumstances it will appear most prudent to abstain from religious inquiry. Indeed the Council of Trent has formally prohibited religious inquiry. For it has not only decreed, that its ministers shall not interpret the Scriptures in their public discourses, so as to impugn the authorised interpretation of the Church (which everj/ Church has an undoubted right to require), but it has further decreed, that no one even in piuvate shall interpret the Scriptures in any other way, than according to the prescribed form ^ Conscience is ' At the end of tlic sentence, of which the bc^jinning was quoted in Note 2. of the preceding Chapter, is added, etianisi hujusniodi inierpretationcs 7iullo uni^aam tempore in lucent edendiC Jorcnt, Chap. IX. Churches of England and Rome. 183 therefore reduced to a state of servitude ; and men are compelled even to think^ as the Council has determined that they shall think. The welfare of €very religious Society requires indeed, that its formulary of faith be not openly impugned by its Ministers. But if men are not at liberty to in- vestigate the sense of Scripture for themselves ; if they are not at liberty to examine^ whether the Articles of their religion are founded in Scripture ; and finally if, in the event of their being persuaded to the contrary, they have not the liberty of with- drawing from the communion, of which those Articles are the Creed, a spiritual tyranny ia esta- blished, which subverts all the ends of religion. Nor must we forget, in reference to the authority claimed by the Church of Rome, that it is not con- fined to the punishment of the hudy^ but extends to the punishment of the soul. In the passage above quoted from the Roman Catechism, all heretics and schismatics are denounced as persons " to be brought " to justice, punished, and by anathema doomed to " damnation ^" And, agreeably to this notion, the bare act of separation from the Church of Rome is declared, in the theological Lectures of Maynooth, to be nothing less than the forfeiture of salvation', * See Note 2, ' Certissima est doctrina, Patrum consensione, et Ecclesiae praxi confirmata, Schismaticos, etiamsi in fide non errarent, solo sui Schismatis facto esse extra Ecclesiam, et xiam salntis. De Ecclesia Christi, p. 25. We find also at p. 16, Necesse est agnos- cere, haereticos omnes, quos e sinu suo rejicit Ecclesia, ad illam non pertinere. Sed eo ipso illis nulla est speranda salus. Further we find at p . 19, Ergo iterum confirmatur doctrina, omnes haere- ticos | 184 Comparative View of the Chap. IX. Now let notions like these be instilled into children, from their earliest years, and they must have very strong minds indeed, if, when men, they ever venture to form an opinion of their own in matters of faith. And that such notions are instilled into the minds of children, who are educated in the Romish religion, appears from the CatechismSy in which they are in- structed. Now there is no Romish Catechism so generally used in these dominions as that, which bears the following title " The most Rev. Dr. James *' Butler's Catechism, revised, enlarged, approved *' and recommended by the four R. C. Archbishops " of Ireland, as a general Catechism for the King- " dom;" of which the eighth edition was printed at Dublin in 1811. At p. 15, 1 6, of tliis edition, we find the following questions and answers. Q, Where are true Churchmen to be found? A. Only in the true Church. Q. IIow do you call the true Church ? A. Tlie holy Catholic Church. Q. Is there any other true Church, besides the holy Catholic Church? A. No. As there is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, there is but one Church. Q. Are all obliged to be of the true Church ? A. Yes : 7io one can be saved out of it. ticos, quos rejicitEcclesia, ad illam non pertiiicre, et esse extra viam subiiis. And of those, who are born and baptized out of tlie Romish Church it is said at p. 24-, Eo magis pcricuhisuin fj-se statum eoruni, qui in schismale baptizatiftteruut, quod nuii(|uaiu cogitubunt do nuacrenda vera Ecclcsia, extra quauj non est salus, Chap. IX. Churches of England and Rome, 1 85 That the terms " true Church" and " Catholic Church" here denote exclusively the Church of Rome, appears from what follows at p. 17, of the Same catechism. For the " true Church" is there described as being " One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolical ;" and to the question, how the Church is One, is answered, " In all its members believing " the same truths, having the same sacraments and " sacrifice, and being under one visible head on earth'' All Protestants therefore without exception, inasmuch as they reject the authority of the Pope, and the sacrifice of the Mass, are thus denounced as excluded from the " true Church f and consequently as excluded from salvation. In like manner the author of the treatise De Ecclesia Christi, declares that the Church of Rome alone has that unity, which is the character and mark of the true Church ' : and he denounces Protestants in general as Schismatics ^^ who, as we have already seen, are declared incapable of salvation. Now let any one compare this doctrine of ex- clusive salvation with the doctrine taught in our eighteenth Article, and see whether they admit of a comparison. This Article is entitled, '' Of ob- taining eternal salvation only by the name of Christ," and the Article itself is as follows ; " They also are " to be had accursed that presume to say, that every " man shall be saved by tlie law or sect which lie " professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life ' Ecclesia Romana, et sola, illam habet unitatem, quae est character, et nota verce Ecclesia. P. 46. 9 Societas Protestantium sese a Schismatis reatu excusare non potest. P. 43. 186 Comparative View of the Chap. IX. " according to that law and the light of nature. For *' Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name " of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved." This Article therefore excludes from Salvation no Christian whatever ; whereas Protestants in general are excluded from Salvation by the Church of Rome. The Churches therefore of England and Rome are so far from agi^eeiiig on the subject of exclusive salvation, (as the advocates of the latter argue from our eighteenth Article), that no two opinions can be more opposite. The Romanists exclude us from salvation: but we do not exclude them from sal- vation '°. Nor do we exclude them from salvation even by the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed ; for that very Creed, in the form in which we now have it, was received by the Church of England from the Church of Rome. The members therefore of that Church have no right to complain of it; and in a " Comparative view of the Churches of England and Rome," we have no concern with other Churches. It is moreover unfair to argue ■"* If it be further objected, that our eighteenth Article, though it excludes no Christian from salvation, yet excludes from salvation all who are not Christians, I answer, that the covenanted mercies of God are offered only to those, who accept the con- ditions, on which the offer is made. The Article therefore ap- plies only to those, who have the means of knowing what those conditions flre, and who Icnowing those conditions wantonly reject them. It was intended to confute the error, that works were every iking, and faith nothing. The Article has a marked opposition to a tenet, then advanced by various free-thinkers. It must be ex- plained therefore with reference to that tenet ; and not be so con- strued, as if it meant to assert, that they, who had never hennl of the Gospel, were in the same situation with those, who had wantonly rejected it. Chap. IX. Churches of England and Rome. 1 87 from the anathemas of a particular Creed to the general sentiments of the Church of England. Those sentiments are officially declared in our Articles of Religion; and by those Articles no Christian what- ever is excluded from the hope of salvation ". Nor is it fair to confound the sentiments of other Pro- testant Churches with the sentiments maintained by the Church of England, which can only be answer- able for its own opinions. If Calvin asserted, that there is no salvation out of the bosom of the Church '*, and by the term Church is meant, not the universal Church, including Christians in general, but only a particular Church, no such doctrine is maintained by the Church of England. If " the same doctrine, *' is distinctly taught in various Professions of Faith " made by the Reformers, as in that of Strasbourg " presented to Charles V. in 1530, in that of "Switzerland in 1566, inthatof the Low-Countries, ** in that of Scotland in 1 647, which was approved " in a general meeting of Theologians, and sanc- " tioned by Parliament 'S" it serves only to shew the " Though I argue against the inferences deduced from the Anathemas of the Athanasian Creed, I do not mean to defend those Anathemas. They are no part of the Creed itself. And though such Anathemas were not uncommon in ancient Creeds, they might have been consistently rejected from the Athanasian Creed, when it was adopted by our Reformers. See the senti- ments of the Bishop of Lincoln on this subject in his Elements ef Christian Theology, vol. II. p. 222. '* Extra ecclesiae graemium nulla est speranda peccatorum remissio, nee ulla snlus, quoted fron Calvin's Institutes (lib. IV. cap. 1.) by Sir J. C. Hippisley in the Appendix, No. XV. to his Speech in the House of Commons, May 18, 1810. 'J lb. ib. 188 Compaf^a five View of the Chap. IX. superior moderation of the Church of Enirland, in which such doctrine is not maintained. But let us confine ourselves to the subject immediately before us, which relates only to a comparison between the Churches of England and Rome : and for this com- parison it is sufficient to know, that while the Church of Rome excludes us from the hope of salvation, we are not so uncharitable as to entertain the same opinion of i/iem '*. However greatly we may dis- approve of those doctrines, which have no foundation in Scripture, we are far from thinking, that they, who have been taught to believe in them, and are unable to judge for themselves, will be punished hereafter for opinions, over which they had no controul '*. But the Church of Rome requires for '* This moderation on the part of our Church must not how- ever be so construed, as if it impHed either doubt or indifference about the truth of the established Creed. Though we charitably admit, that there is more than one way to salvation, we still believe that our own is the best. " The objection indeed has been somewhere made, that we call theirdoctrine of Transubstantiation "a damnable Doctrine," an expression which excludes (as is said) from salvation all who believe in it. Now I am really not aware that our Church, in any of its official documents, has applied that epithet to Tran- substantiation ; and it cannot be answerable for an epithet, which may have been used elsewhere. Nor would the inference be just, even if the premises were correct : for a mere epithet, expressing only an abhorrence of a particular doctrine, can hardly imply that they who receive the doctrine will be exposed to Janitiation. But tlie whole objection is probably founded in mistake, arising from a confusion, either of the Declaration against Popery, or of that af,^ainst transubstantiation, with the oath of Supremacy. In the latter, tlie position that princes excommunicateilby the Tope may be deposed and murderedby tjieirsubjects, is called, and vcrv justly called Ch A P. IX. Churches of England and Rome. \ 8^ salvation, not only a belief of those doctrines, which are common to the two Churches and indeed to most Christians, such as the doctrine of the Triaity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement ; it requires also for salvation a belief in those Doctrines, by which the Church of Rome is distiiiguished, such as the doc- trines of transubstantiation, the worshipping of the Host, the Invocation of Saints, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the praying of souls out of purgatory, &c. All these peculiar doctrines are enumerated in the Trent Confession of Faith, and at the end of them is added, that this is the true Catholic faith, out of which 710 one can be saved '^. It is therefore quite irrelevant to quote the sentiments of any individual member of that Church. It may be readily granted, that among the members of the Church of Rome, there are men of learning and talents, who, though attached to the cause, are too liberal to confine their hope of salvation to a single church. But we are now concerned with the rule itself; not with the exceptions to the rule. And when we consider, that the doctrine of exclusive salvation is taught, not only in the Trent Confession of Faith, not only in the theological Lectures at Maynooth, but in the very Catechisms, which are put into the hands of child- ren, surely no man can pretend, that the doctrine called " a damnable doctrine." But that epithet is not applied to Transubstantiation, either in the declaration against Transub- stantiation, or the Declaration against Popery. See Burn's Ec- clesiastical Law, vol. III. p. 16, 17. And it is certainly not so applied in our Articles. *^ Hanc veram catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salviis esse potest. ipO Comparative View of the Chap. IX. of exclusive salvation is not the general doctrine of that Church. "W hen we further consider, that the decisions of that Church, in matters of faith, are believed to be absolutely infallible, we clearly perceive that no room is left for the exercise of private judgment in con- troversies of faith. Whatever diversity of opinion may prevail about the seat of infallibility, its ex- istence is asserted by all Romish writers without ex- ception. Whether a General Council derives in- fallibility from the Pope, which was the opinion of Bellarmine; or whether the Pope derives infaUibility from a General Council, as others have asserted ; or whether the supposed infallibility is a sort of joint production, the Deares of a General Council in matters of faith and morals are pronounced in- fallible by them all. And as the Church of Rome is represented in a General Council, convoked by the authority of that Church, the Decrees of such a Council and the Decrees of that Church are one and the same thing. Hence it is positively asserted in the Roman Catechism, that the Church of Rome cannot err in matters of faith and morals, inasmuch as it is guided by the Holy Spirit ; but that all other Churches must err in faith and morals, inasmuch as they are led by the Spirit of the Devil *'. Now as the Roman Catechism is one of the official docu- ments of that Church, nothing further can be "' Qucinadmoduni haec una Ecclesia errare non potest in fidei ac morum discipline tradendd, cum a spiritu sancto gubernetur, ita cffiteras oranes, quae sibi Ecclesia: nomen arrogant, ut quae a Diaboli spiritu ducantur, in doctrina- eimoruin pcrniciosissiniii erruribus vcrsari neceste at. Catcch. Koni. p. S13. cd, liS". Chap. IX. Churches of England and Rome. \9\ \vanted for the purpose of proving, that the Church of Rome claims such infaUibihty. But it is of additional importance to us, that the same tenet is strongly enforced in the theological Lectures at Maynooth '^ ; for the belief, that the Church of Rome is infallible, is the key-stone of the whole edifice. Now one of the chapters in the treatise De Eccksia Christi is intitled, " Of the infallibility of the Church assembled in General Councils '' :" and the proposition maintained in the next chapter is, that " Councils, which are general in their con- vocation and celebration are wfallible *°." The reason of this supposed infallibility, as assigned by the Roman Catechism, is that such Councils are under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit ; and this very reason is assigned by the Council of Trent*'. But the author of the above-quoted treatise argues further from the necessity of the case, and maintains, that in the Church of Christ an authority is requisite, which shall determine controversies of *3 On this subject I can quote the authority of Sir J. Hippis- ley, For in No. XV, of the Appendix to his Speech of May 18, 1810, he makes the following observation on the Treatise de Ec- clesia Christi. He calls it " the Class Book of the Students des- tined for Holy Orders :" and he adds, " It is of great iniport- «' ance to ascertain what are the tenets professed and taught in ** the seminaries, which supply candidates for the Priesthood of *♦ the Roman Catholic Communion within the Realm; especially *' on the points generally objected to Catholics.*' *5 De infallibilitate Ecclesise.in Conciliis generalibus congre- gatae. P. 164-. *^ Concilia, convocatione et celebratione generalia, sunt in- fallibilia. P. 166. *' In most of the Decrees it styles itself, Sacrosancta Triden- tina Synodus, in Spiritit, Sancto legitime congregata. 192 Comparative View of the Chap. IX. faith by an irrefragable, and therefore infallible judgment**. Now we have seen that the Church of England claims likewise authority in controversies of faith. But this authority no more implies infallibility, than the authority of the judges in controversies of law. Whether the law of God be interpreted in our Con- vocation, or the law of man in an assembly of the twelve Judges, the authority of the interpretation rests on its supposed agreement Avith the text. In- deed the infallibility of any Synod, and consequently of the Synod, wliich settled our Articles of Religion, is positively disclaimed in the twenty-first of those Articles. It is there asserted, that even General Councils both may err, and liave erred, in things pertaining to God. It is true, that the Church of England has its fanatics, as well as the Church of Home ; and that those fanatics, like the holy fathers who composed the Council of Trent, suppose themselves favoured by the especial guidance of the Spirit, and therefore exempted from the possibility of error. But the delusions of a party must not be ascribed to the Church at large. If the Articles of our Church disclaim intallihility, the Church itself disclaims it : for the Articles speak the sense of the Church. If then, while the Church of England admits that it 7nay have erred ; the Church of Rome con- tends that it cannot err ; if, while the Church of England admits, that salvation may be obtained in " In Ecclesiae Christi admittenda est autoritas qurcdam ex- terior, loquens, et coercitiva, qua? controvcrsias de divinis rebus irrcfragabili, proindequc iri/hi/tinii iiid'n:lo diritnat. P. 90. Chap. IX. Churches of England and Romk 193 -the Church of Rome, the latter denies the possi- bility of it in the former, we cannot have a more striking contrast between the powers, which are claimed by the respective Churches. The authority of the Church of England goes no further, than is necessary for its own preservation ; its members have no other restraints, than such as the welfare of every Society requires: it neither prevents them from adopting any other form of Christianity, nor ex- cludes them from salvation, if they do. But the Church of Rome, which denies salvation to all who depart from it, and inculcates the belief that the very act of departure is the forfeiture of salvation, enslaves the conscience, and enchains the faculties of man. The Church of England then is a system of religious liberty ; the Church of Rome a system of religious slavery. This state of slavery is further promoted, and most effectually secured by what is called the Sacra- ment of Penance *\ which the Council of Trent has declared to be necessary for Salvation **. Now an essential part of this Sacrament is confession, and moveover private Confession, to a priest *^ This " Sacramentum Poenitentiae. See the fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent. ** The fourth Canon of the seventh Session, which relates to the Sacraments in general, is as follows, Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua, et sine eis, aut eorum voto, per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint, anathema sit. P. LI. Now the expression non omnia singulis ap- plies to Orders and Matrimony ; but not to Baptism or Confir" mation, or the Eucharist, or Penance, or Extreme Unction. *' See tlie fifth and sixth Chapters of the Decree relating particularly N 194 Comparative Xlew of the Chap. IX. private Confession is required by the Roman Cat6»» chism to be made at least once every year** : and the Confession itself is required to be whole and absolute, including even mortal sins *\ Hence in Butler's Catechism, p. 50, we find the following question and answer: Q. What do you think of those, who conceal a mortal sin in Confession ? A. They commit a most grievous sin by telling a lie to the Holy Ghost *'. Now when children are educated in the belief, that as soon as they come to years of discretion, they must periodically confess their sins to a priest, and confess them without reserve, they are subjected to a spiri- tual tyranny, which would never be borne, if the impression of its necessity ^vere not made at an age, when habits of servitude are mosteasily acquired. To confess our sins to Almighty God is a duty in- cumbent on us all. But to be placed under the ob- ligation of going annually to a priest, for the purpose of Confession, and to be told, that if we conceal from him even a mortal sin, we lie to the Holy Ghost, is such an insult to a rational being, that particularly to the Sacraraent of Penance ; the former of which is entitled, De Conjessione, the latter Deministro hujus Sacra- menti el absolutione. P. LXXXIX— XCII. *' Quo vero potissimuni tempore confiteri oporteat, eo canon* tie quo anteadiximus, sanctaEcclesia decrevit : jubet ^xnmsemel sallem quotnnnis fideles omncs peccata sua confiteri. P. 229. *' Illud autem imprimis doccant Parochi, in confessione cu- randum esse, ut iiUcgra et ahsoluta- sit: etenim omnia mortalia pcccnia Saccrdoti apcrire oportet. lb. ib. " The same declaration is made in the Abstract of the Douay Catechism, p. Ii2. Chap. IX, Churches of England and Rome. 195 even the prejudices of education are hardly sufiicient to account for the patience, with which the servitude is endured. The case is widely different, when men voluntarily go to consult their ministers, in order to seek relief for a troubled conscience, and relate to him at their own discretion the offences, which cause their uneasiness. Now the Confessions required by the Church of England are general Confessions to Almighty God, in which the Priest joins with the congregation : and though on certain occasions especial Confession is i^ecommended, it always depends on the will of the person himself. Thus in the Exhortation to attend the Sacrament, the Minister, after admonishing those, who have been guilty of any " grievous crime," to repent of their sins before they come to that holy table, sub- joins, ** if there be any of you, who by this means " cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth " further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or *' to some other discreet and learned Minister of " God's Word, and open his grief." This exhor- tation is so far from conta,ining a command to make private confession of sins, that in the first place it applies only to cases, where men are unable to quiet their ozvn consciences, and in the second place offers only the means of relief to those, who choose to accept them*'. But the advocates of the Church ^ As the Church of England allo-ws, though it does not commandy the use of private Confession, it has wisely made the following provision in the 11 3th Canon, which relates to Ministers certifying to the Ecclesiastical Courts notorious crimes and scan- dals by presentment. " Provided always, that if any man confess " his secret and hidden sins to the Minister, for the unburdening «of N 2 ]g6 Comparative l^iew of the Chap. IX. of Rome avail themselves of an expression in the office for the " Visitation of the Sick," which is considered, as implying something more, than mere recommendation. In one of the Rubrics to this Office it is said, "Here the sick person shall be " moved to make a special confession of his sins, if " he feels his conscience troubled with any weighty " matter." Now the force of the word " moved," on which great stress is laid, may be best appreciated by considering the use of it in the Rubric immediately preceding, wijich is ; " The Minister should not omit earnestly to move such sick persons, as are of ability, to be liberal to the poor." Here the verb in question is coupled with the adverb " earnestly ;" yet no one will contend that a Rubric, relating to the sick man's proptrtj/, can imply a command on •' of his conscience and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of «* mind from him ; we do not any way bind the said Minister «' by this our Constitution, &c." Surely nothing could be more proper, or even more necessary than this provision. By the 109th Canon the Churchwardens of every parish are required to present notorious offenders ; and by the 1 1 3th Canon the same is required of Ministers, if the duty is neglected by the Church- wardens. Since then confession to a Minister is allowed by the Exhortation in the Conmiunion Service, there would have been a strange inconsistency, if men who vohuitarUy confessed, for the purpose of unburdening their conscience, and whose offences would otherwise have remained un/inoivn to the Minister, were confounded with those whose offences were notorious. To betray a secret, confided by one man to another, for the purpose of unburdening his conscience, is something so detestable, that the prohibition of the 1 13th Canon can require no further defence. And if this Canon had been estimated, as it ought, with reference to the Exhortation in the Communion Service it would have ex- cited less surprise, when Sir J. C. Hippisley read it in the House cf Commons. See his Speech of May IS, IblO, p. 46. Ch A p. IX. Churches of England and Rome. 1 97 the part of the Minister. No such command then is implied in the Rubric, which relates to his Con- fession. Nor must we forget, that this Confession is not recommended in all cases ; it is recommended only " if he feels his conscience troubled with any " weighty matter." And how is the Minister to know this, unless the sick man of his own accord declares it. But if he does declare that " his conscience is " troubled with some weighty matter," the Minister who prays with him, may surely advise him to specify the cause of his uneasiness, as the surest mode of quieting his conscience. Here is no spiri- tual tyranny, for all depends on the will of the patient. On the other hand, if a Minister of the established Church were desired to pray with a sick person, and that sick person gave no intimation of a troubled conscience, or a want of spiritual relief, the Minister would not be, authorised by the Rubric even to recommend a special confession. It would be a most impertinent, and unjustifiable prying into secrets, with which he is no otherwise con- cerned, than as the patient himself requires his assistance^". There is no similarity therefore what- ^^ Even the Absolution is not given unless '* he humbly and heartily desire it." Of this absolution, though it is often quoted for the purpose of shewing the similarity of o?EMEAION olxthuZ. RoiO. Ji;v. 20. Chap. X. Churches of England and Rome. 209 chapter. Again, if St. Peter had been at Rome, when St. Paul himself arrived there, St. Luke could not have failed to notice it. But he concludes his history by saying, that St. Paul dwelt at Rome two whole years preaching the kingdom of God '', and gives not the slightest intimation of St. Peter having been there. Nor is it credible, if St. Peter had been at Rome during any part of the time, when St. Paul himself was there, that St. Paul M'ould have written Epistles from that very place, and have said nothing of St. Peter. Yet he wrote not less than sir Epistles from Rome ; namely, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Hebrews, to Philemon, and the second Epistle to Timothy : and in none of those Epistles does the name of St. Peter ever once occur. Indeed he says expressly in the second Epistle to Timothy, " only Luke is with me *'." And this very Epistle appears to have been written by St. Paul only a short time before his death. For he says at chap. iv. 6. " I am now ready to be offered, and the time of " my departure is at hand. I have fought a good *' /]g'/i^, / have finished my course." The opinion therefore, that St. Paul and St. Peter were together at Rome, and that they suffered martyrdom together, is an opinion which, however prevalent after the time of Irenaeus, must be devoid of foundation. Better evidence we cannot have, than is afforded by St. Paul's Epistles ; and it is well known that re- ports may be propagated without contradiction, a hundred years after an event is said to have happened, especially when it flatters the vanity of •3 Acts xxviii. 30, 31. *' Chap. iv. 11. a 210 Comparative View of the Chap. X. those, among whom it is propagated. Nor is it unworthy of our notice, that when St. Paul calls himself the Apostle of the Gentiles, he calls St. Peter the Apostle of the Jews ". On what principle then, it may be asked, is he claimed by the Church of Rome ? But if the evidence, afforded by St. Paul, should still be thought insufficient to outweigh the evidence of irena^us, it may be further observed, that Irenaeus himself has shewn, that the evidence of Irenaeus, at least on this subject, is of no value. For in the very same sentence he asserts that the Church of Rome was not only the greatest but the most ancient Church, an assertion, which directly contradicts the account given in the Acts of the Apostles relative to the Church of Jerusalem **. Now if one part of his evidence contains a palpable false- hood, the credit of the other part is at once de- stroyed. But if St. Peter did not found the Church of Rome, and even if he had never been there, when St. Paul wrote his second Epistle to Timothy, it is still possible (as may be urged) that he came after- wards to Rome, and became Bishop of that see. Let us supj)ose then, that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and examine what inference can be drawn " Gal. li. 7. ** See the reference in the Notes 10 — 13, whence it appears that St. Peter laid the foundation of the Church at Jerusalem on the very same daif, on wliich the Apostles received the gifts of the Holy (jhost. Tlie Cliurch of Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts xi. 26.) must likewise have been founded long before it was possible to found a Church at Rome, to say nothing of the Churches founded by St. Paul before he wrote hiii Epistle to the Rouians. Chap. X. Churches of England and Rome. -Q 1 1 from the supposition. Even if he was called by the name of Bishop, he was still in fact an Apostle. His apostolic quality was not altered by the assumption of another title. But it was only in reference to that title, that the Bishops of Rome could be con- sidered as his successors, even if St. Peter bore that title. For they certainly did not succeed him, in reference to his quality as an inspired Apostle. It is true, that Bishops in general are frequently called successors of the Apostles, as being Heads of the Church : but they do not therefore pretend to inherit the miraculous poxvers of the Apostles, The argu- ment from analogy therefore entirely fails. Indeed the whole is a dispute about words, and hardly merits a serious reply. But since so much stress has been laid on the word " Bishop," as if it had been borne by St. Peter, and was not merely ascribed to him by the Latin writers to gratify their own vanity, let us hear what Irena3us says on this sub- ject, whose evidence cannot be rejected by those, who admit his evidence, as proof that St. Peter was the founder of their Church. Now immediately after the passage, in which he speaks of St. Peter and St. Paul as founders of the Church of Rome, he proceeds as follows, " When the blessed Apostles " had founded and built the Church, they entrusted " the office of Bishop to Linus *^ Even according Trj» IxKATiaictv, Aivu triv t^? E'ThTjiow?? Xmov^y'ictv in^tifrtarut. Of this passage Dr. Delahogue very prudently takes no notice ; though it begins exactly where his own quotation ends. See p. 342, of his treatise De Ecclesia Christi. Yet this passage exists in the Greek original, whereas the passage, which he i^uotes, exists only in a Latin translation. 02 21 '2 Comparative View of the Chap. X. tliea to the account of Irenseus, the Bishops of Rome must be considered, as successors of Li?ius, not as successors of St, Peter **. And after all it would be difficult to compre- hend, on what princij)ie the primacy of the Popes could be established, even were it granted, that they were successors of St. Peter, and his successors in any sense of the word, which they might choose to adopt. If Bishops, who preside where a Church was founded by an Apostle, have on that account a title to precedence, the Bishops of Corinth, Thessa- lonica, Ephesus, and of other Churches founded by St. Paul, had as good a right to precedence as the Bishop of Rome. Aye, but St. Paul they say, was not equal in i^ank to St. Peter, vvho was the pj^ince of the Apostles (princeps Apostolorum). Now St. Paul himself has positively denied such pre- cedence ; he says ['i Cor. xi. 5.) that he " was not a whit behind the very chicfest Apostles." It is further argued, that St. Peter was the Roek^ on which the Church was built. So indeed he ivas. He was the Rock, on which the Church of Jeru- salem was built, the Church which was the mother of all Churches, and, which, if the arguments of the *^ Ircnacus adds, that Linus was succeeded by Anacletus, and Anaclctus by Clemens, wlio wrote, as he observes, an Epistle to the Corinthians. ' Now this Epistle is still extant, and if Clemens liad considered himself as successor of .S^ Peter in the See of Kome, one might expect tliat some allusion would have been made to it. Ikit I have lately read the whole of that Epistle ; and not a syllable does lie say of St. Peter having been Bi^hoi) of Kome. Yet he liad a very good opportunity, as in Chap, v, he speaks of the martyrdvm of St. IVter; u'iouijh he spcaki of it without saying ■where. Chap. X. Churches of England and Rome. g 1 3 Romanists were valid, might claim to be mistress of all Churches. At this very day there is a Patriarch of Jerusalem, who, though he possesses no patri" mony of St. Peter, has an infinitely stronger claim to the primacy among Christians, than the Pope of Rome. The Church of Jerusalem is unquestionably the mother Church, which the Church of Rome is not. The Church of Jerusalem was unquestionably founded by St. P^ter, which the Church of Rome was not. In the Church of Jerusalem, and not in the Church of Rome, was fulfilled the prophecy of our Saviour, that the Church should be founded on St. Peter, as a Rock. It is through the Church of Jerusalem, which was the mother of all Churches, and not through the Church of Rome, that Chris- tian Churches in general partake of the prophecy of our Saviour *^ *' As the inference deduced by the Romisli writers from our Saviour's prophecy, that St. Peter was the Rock, on which the Church should be built, admits of so obvious an answer, it is much to be lamented, that such urmecessary, and at the same time such unsuccessful, pains should have been taken, to shew that our Saviour, under the word Rock did not understand St. Peter. The distinctions, which have been made between Uir^oc and neVp in the Greek, or between Pet/us and Pelra'm the Latin Vulgate, wl\eri the language of our Saviour was neither Greek nor Latin, are surely unworthy of a Critic. The language spoken by our Saviour with his Apostles was Syriac : and the identical words, which he used on the occasion in questioi>must be sought there-, fore in the old Syriac version. Now for the Greek words c-v it n«ifio?, x«» iir) rctvTri ttj Ukfo., which in fact are only ji trans- lation, we find in the old Syriac \^\::> {jci W^o \2i.\o ooi Ajj, which literally translated is " Thou art Iiock, and upon this Rock, &c." The same word \si.\o (Ceph;i) is used in both places: the same word is both axi appellative, and a pro- pev 2 1 4 Comparative View of the Chap.X. But if the Church of Rome is determined to maintain a title, to wliich it has no legal claim ; if it is resolved to act, as the mother and mistress of all other Churches; if agreeably to these pretensions it claims a spiiitual jurisdiction over the members of other Churches, whom it considers as deserters deserving of punishment, it is both our interest and our duty to resist demands which are equally dangerous to Church and State. II. If we further examine the principles of that Church on the subjects of infallibility and exclusive salvation, we shall find that hostility to all other Churches is the unavoidable result. If, while men believe, that they are right, they admit that they are possibly wrong, they are naturally disposed to bear with religious opinions, which differ from their own. But they who are persuaded, not only that they do not err, but even that they can not err in matters of faith, are disposed to consider it as a duti/^ to check the growth of all other opinions, which they must consider as dangerous heresy. Guided, as they suppose, by the Holy Spirit, and thus exempted from even the possibility of error, they will deem it impious to tolerate what tlie Spirit, as they imagine, per name, as the word " Rock" is also in English. The effect therefore in Syriac was exactly the same, as if we said in English to a person, whose name was Rock, and who at the same time was likely to be the support of some great cause, " Thou art Rock in name, and sluilt bo Rock in deed, for on thee, Ac." As our Saviour nccessarihj alluded to St. Peter, when lie used \2\::i the first time, he could not possibly allude to any one else, whun the very same word was imniciliately repeated *. * Sec the Ajujcndu, Nole U. Ch A p. X, Churches of England and Rome, 2 1 5 has condemned *^ The belief, that there is no salvation except in the Church of Rome, must even from motives of humanity, and independently of all ambitious views for the extension of power and party, impel the members of that Church to bring over heretics and schismatics into the only communion, in which they can be saved. The bare act of sepa- ration from the Church of Rome, even if accom- panied by no error in faith, is declared sufficient to exclude men from the hope of salvation *^. Now when such a tenet is inculcated in the regular edu- cation, which is received by the students at May- nooth, and this tenet is coupled with the tenet, likewise inculcated in the same College, that the Church of Rome retains its jurisdiction over all Schismatics *^ the Church of England has sufficient reason to apprehend the consequences, if temporal power should ever be added to the spiritual will. And not the Church only, but the State; for the one is allied to the other. The King of Great Britain is to the Church of Rome no less an heretic and *^ If it be objected, that there are likewise Protestants, wha fancy themselves under the immediate influence of the Holy * Spirit, and consequently exempt from the danger of error, I answer that the Church of England, in its own official docu- ments, lays no claim to infallibilitj^, and therefore cannot be answerable for the fanaticism of those, who suppose themselves go gifted. *^ Certissima est doctrina, Patrum consensione, et Ecclesise praxi confirmata, Schismaticos, etiamsi in fide non errarent, solo sui Schismatis facto esse extra Ecclesiam, et viam salut'is. De Ecclesia Christi, p. 25. ^^ Ecclesia suam retinet jurisdictionem in omnes Apostatas, Hi3ereticos, et Schismaticos, quanquam ad illius corpus non jatn. pertineant. lb, p, SQl. 216 Comparative View of the Chap. X. schismatic, than any of his subjects ; and to tolerate an heritical King is to expose the true rehgion to imminent danger *'. Such are the consequences of that spiritual authority, which is claimed by the Church of Rome, and which is alike incompatible with the welfare of other Churches, and of other States. The pretence, that it only exercises spiri- tual power is futile in the extreme : for if the exercise of spiritual power produces ciiJi/ mischief, we must argue from the consequence, and not from the cause. In fact, it is of no importance by what name an authority be called, if it leads to evils, which ought not to be borne. Nor is it always possible to distinguish between the exercise of spiritual and the exercise of temporal power, especially when both temporal and spiritual power is vested, as at the Court of Rome, in the same person. But even were the Pope a mere spiritual Bishop, yet there are so many acts, which are of a mLied nature, that a Romanist in this country might easily consider as spiritual^ what our Govern ment might justly consider as temporal. In tliisdivitied opinion it may be asked, who is to determine, and who is to be obeyed? A clear and distinct answer is* given to this question by Bellarmine, who says, that when the jus divinum, and the jus luunauum are at variance, the former must be observed in preference ^0 the latter '°. *' This inference naturally follows from the adniitti d pre- mises. Of course the inference is not drawn in the treatise Dc Ecclesia Christi: but it is drawn by Bellarmine, who says, " To- *' lerare regem haereticum, vel infidelcm conantem pertralicre " homines ad suam sectam, est exponere reli<:iontni evidentis- ** einio periculo," De Romano Pi^difce, lib. V. cey . 7. *° Xb. ib. C H A p. X. Ch urches of England and Rome. 2 1 7 The distinction therefore, which is now made between obedience to the Pope in spirituals, and obedience to the King in temporals, is a distinction, which the Romanists themselves must in practice find it difficult to observe. As far as theory goes on this subject, the power of the Pope over the temporal concerns of other countries is now formally dis- claimed ; though it was once very strenuously asserted, and Bellarmine himself was some time in disgrace at the Court of Rome, because he admitted that the power of the Pope in temporals was only indirect ^\ But if all power over the temporal concerns of other countries is now disclaimed for the Pope of Rome, it is absolutely impossible to disclaim that power for the Church of Rome. And 3' The title of Bellarmine's sixth Chapter of the fifth book De Romano Pontifice is, •' Papam habere suramam temporalem potestatem indirede." But one should suppose, that Bellarmine had said enough in this very chapter, to appease the anger of the Pope for his unguarded admission. For at the beginning of this very Chapter he says, " Asserimus Pontificem, ut Pontificem, ** etsi non habeat ullum mere temporalem potestatem, tametsi *' habere in ordine ad homim spirituale summam potestatem dis- *' ponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum." And in a subsequent part of the same Chapter he makes the following nice distinction. " Non potest Papa, ut Papa, ordinarie tem- *' porales Principes deponere, etiam justa de causa, eo modo quo " deponit Episcopos, id est tanquara ordinarius Judex : tamea " potest miitare regna, et uni auferre atque alteri conferre, tan- ** quam summus Princeps spiritualis, si id necessarium sit ad *' animarum snlutem." — Now, since Bellarmine, as appears from the disgrace which he incurred in consequence of his denying the direct power of the Pope, certainly did not represent the authority of the Pope, as greater, than the Pope himself con- sidered his due, I should prefer this opinion of Bellarmine to the opinion of any University in France or Spain. 2 1 8 Comparative Viexv oftht Chap.X. what consolation is it to know, that the Pope, as Pope (Papa, ut Papa^ as Bellarmine distinguishes) renounces a power, if that power is claimed by the Church, of which he himself is the head ? HI. That the Church of Rome claims a power in matters which are purely temporal, is evident from various Canons, which have been made by General Councils. The Canon which has attracted the most attention, is the third Canon of the fourth Lateran Council, holden by Pope Innocent III. in the year 1215. The Canon is entitled, De hare- ticis, and the extirpation of heresy is the object of it ''. But as the measures adopted for that purpose, '' It begins, " Excommunicamus et anathematizamus omnem ** haeresim extollentem se adversus banc sanctam, ortbodoxam, ** Catbolicam fidem, quam superius exposuimus, condemnantcs *' universos hcereticos, quibuscunquc nominibtis censeantur.^' And after a sbort interval it proceeds as follows, " Moneantur auteni *• et inducantur, et si necesse fueril per censuram ecclesiasticam ** compellantur scecularcs potestatcs, qidbuscunquej'uugantur (iffi- *' ciis, ut sicut reputari cupiunt et baberi fideles, ita pro defen- *' sione fidei pra^stent publice juramentum, quod de terris sua? ju- *' risdictioni subjectis universos hcereticos ab ecclesia denotatos " bona fide pro viribus exterminare studebunt: itaquodammodo, ** quandocunque quis fuerit in potestatem, sive spiritalem, sive •' temporalem assuniptus, boo teneatur capitulum juramcnto Hr- *• mare. Si vcro doininus temporalis, requisitus et monitus ab Ec- " clesia terram suam purgarc neglexerit ab hac ba^roticaibcibtate, " per Metropolitanum et cacteros comprovinciales Episcopos ex- " communicationis vinculo innodetur. Et si satisfacere contemp- ** serit infra annum, significetur boc summo pontiHci ; ut ex tunc " iitSQ vasn/los ab rjus fide/if ate dcuiniciet abso/iitos, ct terram expo- •' nat Cathulicis occupnndam, qui earn, extrmiiiinlis hicrcticts, sine '• ulla coiUradiclionc pussidcant, et in fuiei puritate conservenl : salvu Ch A p. X. Churches of England and Rome. 2 1 9 amount to nothing less, than the deposing of temporal Lords in general, who refuse to assist in the extir- pation, the Advocates of the Church of Rome have employed every effort to evade the conclusions, which are drawn from it. And with a view of shewing especially, that it cannot be applied to this kingdom, they have argued, first, that the term " heretic" in that Canon cannot include Protestants, because they did not then exist ; and secondly, that the temporal Lords, against which the Canon exercises a deposing power, were only feudal Lords, or such as held of a principal Lord, and consequently could not include a Lord paramount, like the King of England. Now throughout the whole Canon there is no such thing as a specijication of heretics, either by this, or by that name ; they are mentioned in the most general manner possible; the Canon expressly includes uni- 'versos hcereticos quibuscimque nominibus censeantur ^*. ** salvo jure Domini principalis, dummodo super hoc ipse nullum " praestet obstaculum, nee aliquod impedimentum opponat ; •' eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos, qui Jion habent Domi- *• nos principales." Concilia LabbeietCossartii, torn. XI. col. 148. ^^ Mr. Lingard at p. 43, of his " Review of certain Anti-Ca- tholic publications" has given a translation from that part of the third Canon which begins with the words, " Si vero dominus temporalis," &c. He says the Canon enacts, "that if the Lord *' of a fee patronise the Albigenses, he shall be excommunicated ** by the Metropolitan and Bishops of the province; that if he does ** not amend, &c. ;" and he prefixes inverted commas, from which his readers will conclude that he presents them with a translation from the very words of the Canon. From what edition he has translated I cannot say ; but this I can positively assert, that the word " Albigenses" does not exist in this Canon either in the well known edition of Labbe and Co&sart, which I have now before me, or in any edition, which I have ever seen. Indeed to the best 220 Comparative View of the Chap. X. There is no species of heresy therefore, to which the Canon does not apply : and as Protestants in general are called heretics by the Church of Rome, the inference is unavoidable, that Protestants are included in its application. That it applies only io feudal Lords is argued from the expression salvo jure domini principalis; but we must not forget what immediately follows, eadem nihilominus lege scrvatA circa cos, qui dominos princi pales non habent. For surely Lords, uho have no principal, must theiU' selves be principal Lords". Nor is it possible best of my knowledge the term "Albigenses" does not occur in any one of the Canons made at the fourth Lateran Council. It was the third Lateran Council holden by Alexander III, not the fourth Lateran Council, holden by Innocent III, in which the Waldenses and Albigenses were condemned. ^' To evade the force of this inference it has been asserted, that the expression qui non habent dominos pnncipales meant only per- sons whose estates were allodial. But to have a principal lord (haberg dominum princip:'.Iem), and to hold of a principal lord (tenere a domino principali) are two totally different things. Spelman in his Glossarium Archsologicum explains " Allo-^ dium," as " terra hbera, quam quis a nenjine tenet ;'' but he adds, '• est sub domino districtus quoad protectionem et jurisdictio- nem." Since then it may be said of those who have allodial property " non lenent a dominisprincipalibus," whereas it can- not be said of them " non habent dominos principales," the ex- pression used in the Canon appears to be inapplicable to them. But it certainly may be applied to those who are lords para- mount, which was full enough for the purpose, either of In- nocent III, or of his successors. But says Sir J. C. Ilippislcy (Speech 1810, p. 73,) of the words domini principales^ " Ca- V tholics contend, and it seems with reason, that those words «* cannot mean Sovereigns, as is often supposed, since they ** occur in in the f-iuiie manner in the constitution of 1-re- " derick II, which could only bind his own vassals." This con- itiliition is (juotcd h\ -Mr. Linyard, p. ^5 : but iu copying he hu^ Chap. X. Churches of England and Rome, 221 to have an expression more general, than that of SiECulares potestates, quibiiscunque fnngantur officiis. If we further ask in what manner the authority, which proposed the law, has itself construed the law, we shall find that it does apply to the Sovereigns of England »*. has made two mistakes. For in Goldasti Constitutiones Imperia- les, torn. II. p. 295, whence his copy is taken, we find " salvo jure domini temporalis*' where he has copied " salvo jure domini principalis ;" and " non habent dominos temporales principales,'* where he has copied " non habent dominos principales," and omitted the word " temporales.'' But even if the very same ex- pressions had been used by the Emperor, which had been used by the Pope, it would still be no necessary consequence, that the Emperor and the Pope used them in the same sense. ^* To say nothing oi former excommunications, it will be suf- ficient to quote the bull of excommunication published by PiusV. against Queen Elizabeth in 1569, and re-published by Sixtus V. in 1588. This Bull is entitled, " S. D. N. Pii Papse V. Sententia *< declaratoria, contra Elizabetham praetensam Anglise Reginam, i' et ei adhcBventes Hcereiicos. Qua etiam declarantur absoluti *• omnes subditi ajuramentojidelitatis, et quocunque alio debito : " etdeinccpsobedientes anathemateillaqueantur." The Bull itself begins as follows ; " Regnans in excelsis, cui data est omnis in ** coelo et in terra potestas, unam sanctam apostolicam et catho- *• licam ecclesiam, extra quam. nulla est salus, uni soli in terris, vi- ** delicet apostolorura princ; : Petro, Petrique successori Romano *< Pontificl, in potestatis jjlentttidine tradidit gubernandam. Plunc " unum super omnes gentes d omnia Regna principem constituit," &c. And the sentence of excommunication and deposition is deli- vered in the following words : " De apostolicae dignitatis plenitu- *' dine declaramus praedictam Elizabetham ha^reticam, et hsereti- *' corum fautricem, eiqueadhaerentesinpraedictis anathematis sen- •' tentiam incurrisse, esseque a Christi corporis unitate praecisos: *' quinetiam ipsam praetenso regni praedicti jure, necnon om7ii et *' quocunque dominio, dignitate privilegioque pirivatam : et item '• proceres, subditos, et populos dicti Regni, et caeteros omnes, ** qui illi quandocunque juraveruut, ajuramento hujusmodi, ac " omni S22 Comparative View of the Chap. X. But there is a Decree of the Council of Trent, in which " the Emperor, Kings, Dukes, Princes," &c, are specifically named ". It relates not indeed to heresy ; it relates to duellincf ; but it is no less an invasion of temporal rights '^ For all who fight duels as well as their seconds, are by this Decree not only excommunicated, but incur xhiiforjcitiire of all their goods ''. Now w hatever punishment may be due in such cases, it is not the province of an eccle- siastical Council to punish by the confiscation of private property : and the very attempt is a gross violation of the temporal rights vested in independent states, to which alone the subjects of those states are amenable, and not to any foreign ecclesiastical power. But this is not all. For " the Emperor, Kings, Dukes, " Princes," &c. are in the same Decree declared " eo z/;50 excommunicated 'V if they sufier duelling in their territories. And moreover the city, castle, or place, in which the duel was foujiht, is withdrawn from their jurisdiction ". It may be urged indeed, *' omni prorsiis dominiiyJidcUtatis, et obxequii debito perpctuo abso- " lutos ; prout nos illos praesentium auctoritate absolvimus, et «* privamus eandem Elizabethan! pretenso jure Regni, aliisque *' omnibus supradictis." The whole of this document is pre- served in Camdeni AnnaleSy Tom. I. pp. 179 — 181. ed 1615. On the papal usurpation of Supremacy both in this and in other States, I particularly recommended Lord Clarendon's ad- mirable Work entitled, lleligion and Policy. ^' Imperator, lieges, Duces, Principcs, &c. ^^ It was made at the twenty-fifth Session, and is contained at p. ccxxxr. of the edition quoted in this Work. ^^ Qui vero pugnam commiserint, et qui eorum patrini vocan- tur, cxcommunicationis, cic omnium bonorum suonon prosciiptio- nis, ac perpctua; infami:c pccnam incurrant. ^* Eo ipso sint cxcominuuicati. '^ lb. ib. Chap. X. Churches of England and Rome. 223 that such a law, made merely by ecclesiastical au- thority, which has not the power of enforcing it, is nothing better than a brutum fulmen. But it must be remembered, that the Church of Rome commands obedience, not by the sword of civil justice, but by the dread of spiritual censures. And as long as either Kings, or their subjects have the weakness to believe, that excommunication from the Church of Rome is exxlusion from salvation, unless atonement be made, such as satisfies the Church, they will be willing slaves of its authority. In explanation however, and likewise in defence, of such Acts of General Councils, they have been lately represented as a sort of General Parliament^ deriving their authority, as well from temporal as from spiritual power. But whoever examines the convocation, the celebration, the signatures, and the confirmation of a General Council, will find that it is wholly and solely ecclesiastical. Who convoked^ for instance, this very Council of Trent? Pope Paul III. as appears from his Bull of Indiction**. — Who presided at the Council? Three Legates of the Pope*'. — Who were the persons, whose sig- natures were affixed to its Canons and Decrees ? *" The Bulla indictionis of Paul III., is prefixed to the De- crees of the Coucil. When Julius III., succeeded to Paul III., the Council was continued by a Bulla Resumptionis. See p. rxvii. And when Pius IV. became Pope, the Council was continued and concluded by the authority of the Bulla celebro' tionis Concilii Tridentini. See p. cxvii. *' The three Legates having been named in the Bull of Indic- tion the second, third, fourth, fifth, &c., Sessions, begin with Sa- crosancta Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu Sancto legitime congre- gata, in ed prcesidentibus eisdem tiibus AposioliccB sedis Legatis, S^-c. 224 Comparative View of the Chap. X. Four Legates of the Pope, two Cardinals, three Patri- archs, twenty-five Archbishops, a hundred and sixty-eight Bishops, seven Abbots, thirty-nine Proc- tors of absent Ecclesiastics, and seven Generals of Monastic Orders **. — By wliom were its Canons and Decrees finally conjirmed? By the Pope himself, as appears from the Conjirmatio Conciiu ^\ It is clear therefore, that the Council had no temporal character of any kind belonging to it. That temporal am- bassadors from different Princes were at Trent, during the time that the Council was holden, is perfectly true : and they intrigued perhaps with the Cardinal Legates. But the Acts of the Council itself derived their whole validity from ecclesiastical authority. Again, if we inquire into the character of the persons, who composed the fourth Lateran Council in 1215, we shall find that Ecclesiastics, and Ecclesiastics alo7ie were summoned to that Council **. Indeed, if it were otherwise a General Council would not represent the Cliurch. Let us hear what the Professor of Divinity at Maynooth says on this subject. In his treatise De Kcclesid Christ i, ** See p. ccxxxvHl. *^ lb. The Confirmation of the Council ends with the fol- lowing words : " Confinnamus atque ab omnibus Christi fideli- " bus recipi, et inviolabiliter observari mandamus in nomine Pa- " tris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti." Amen. ** Eodeni anno 1215, vocati sunt a Papa Innoccntio Roma; ad Concilium Gcuenxla Pralati universalis Ecclesia?, Patriarduc sci^ licet, Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Primicerii, Jrchidiaconi, Decan- calhcdralium Ecclesiarunty Abbates, Priores, Templarii, tt IIus, pitnlniii, ut comparerent in prassentia. Domini Papcc in urbe Roma, Kalcndis Novembris, sicut canoiiicam vitare volucruut ultionem. Concilia Labbei et Coaartii, torn. XI. p. 238. Chap. X. Churches of England and Rome, S25 he has a Chapter entitled, " Of the infallibility of the ** Church assembled in General Councils ** :" he de- fines a Council as " a lawful congregation of Bishops^ ** assembled to give judgment in things relating to *' the faith, the morals, and the discipline of the " Church**:" and he declares that " the Roman *' Pontiff, in consequence of his Primacy, convokes " General Councils by ordinary right, presides over " them, either by himself or by his Legates, and " confirms them *'." It was the Church of Rome therefore, represented in the Council of Trent, which claimed the right of excomjnunicating Kings, and depriving their subjects of their private property. It was the Church of Rome, represented in the fourth Lateran Council, where Innocent III. pre- sided in person, which claimed the right of extermi- nating heretics, and of deposing Princes, if they refused to assist. It is urged indeed, that such Decrees relate merely to the discipline of the Church, which must be carefully distinguished from Decrees on Doctrines. It is urged, that the Church of Rome claims infallibility, in regard only to the latter ; as if no Decree, or Law, could be binding, unless the power, which made it, were infallible. But it is a mis- take, that the infallibility claimed by the Church *' De infallibilitate Ecclesia in Conciliis generalibus congre* gatae. P. 164-. 46 Concilium est legitima Episcoporum congregatio, ut judi- cium de iis ferant, quae ad^dem, mures, et Ecclesiae discipiinam pertinent. lb. *' Romanus Pontifex, ratione sui primates, Concilia gene- ralia jure ordinario convocat, illis prceest, vd per se, vel per Legates, et ilia cow/?rmflf. P. 370. 226 Comparative View of the Chap. X. of Rome is confined to Doctrines, or Articles of Faith. It claims infallibility, not only in things pertaining to Faith, but in things pertaining to Morals. ,The Roman Catechism which is official authority, says expressly, that " the Church cannot " err in delivering rules for faith and morals**." Even the Council of Trent, in the Decree made at the Fourth Session, extends the Traditions, which it receives as equal with Scripture, both to Faith and to Moj-als^. Hence all Catholics, as Bellarmine says, are aj^reed in the opinion, that the Pope, with a General Council cannot err in respect to faith and MORALS *'. And the Professor of Divinity at May- nooth appears to go still further. He speaks " of ** the infallibility of the Church assembled in General *' Councils," and speaks of it without any reservation* Again, he asserts that " Councils, which are general in their convocation and celebration are infallible *' •* and the assertion is accompanied with no limitation. Since then he declares, that the objects of a General Council are Faith, Morals^ and Discipline ^*j one •might conclude, that he not only agreed with all other Romish writers in comprehending Faith, and Morals within the claim of infallibility, but that he extended that claim also to Discipline. And to a certain degree he undoubtedly does, though the *■ Haec una Ecclesia errare non 'potest in fidbi ac morum ilLsciplina tradendA. P. 83. 1587. ^ Turn ad Fidem, tuni ad Mores. See the whole passage in Note 8, to Chap. II. '<* De Ilomano Pontificc, lib. IV. cap. 2. *' P. 16(3. *^ See Note 16. Chap. X. Churches of England and Rome. 227 distinction which he makes, is so refined, that I shall not attempt an analysis, but merely state his own Avords in a Note ". Now if the Church of Rome claims infallibility in things pertaining both to faith and to morals, I would ask, whether the Decree against duelling does not come under the latter description. Though it has certainly no reference to an article of faith, it is a subject, in which the morals of mankind are very deeply involved. And with respect to the third Canon of the fourth Lateran Council, it is not very easy to bring it within that predicament, within which the x'Vdvocates of the Church of Rome have usually placed it. They assert, that the first and second Canons relate to DoctrineSy but that the third and following Canons relate only to Discipline, Now if the second Canon relates to Doctrine, the third must also relate to Doctrine. The second Canon is entitled De errore Abbatis Joachim ; it begins " Damnamus et reprobamus libellum sive tractatum, quarn Abbas Joachim edidit, &c. :" and, that particular heresy having been condemned, the Council proceeds in the third Canon, to condemn heresy in general in the following terms, " Excom- municamus etanathematizamuso??z72ewha3resim, &c." Undoubtedly therefore the third Canon is no less a Canon about Doctrine, than the second. It is '^ Ecclesia jus habet sanciendi A.T^cvXo%Disciplin(S' ; et ubi certo ac firmo Decreto illos proponit, cum intentione omnes Ec- clesias obligandi, non potest errare eo sensu, quod lUa DiscipHna, velcumdoctrina fidei non consentiat, vel bonis moribus adverse- tur," vel in iis, in quibus prasscribitur circumstantiis, religioni Christianee sit nociva. P. 196. V 2 f28 Comparative View of the Chap. X. true, that the punis/nnent denounced against heresy may be considered as a n)atter of discipline : and very severe discipline it is, when heretics are exter- minated, and the Kings of heretics deposed. But what has a Protestant King to apprehend from Canons on Discipline, when they have no validity in any country, wliicU has not received and pub- lished theui ? This question is frequently put, and is supposed to be put with great success. But it involves such a confusion of terms, that it answers no other purpose, than to perplex the subject. When we speak of the validity of an Act of Parliament, as soon as it has received the Royal Assent, every one knows what is meant by it. In this sense of the word, the Acts of the Council of Trent can in a Protestant State have no validity whatever, whe- ther they relate io faith, or to morals, or to discipline' And if in that Protestant State there are persons, who profess the religion of Rome, their obedience to those Decrees is no obedience, which the State requires. In a legal sense therefore validity is out of the question. And with respect to Decrees^ wliich excommunicate Kings for disobeying the orders of the Churchy like the Decree against duelling made by the Council of Trent, one should suppose that 7io King, unless actually enslaved by the spiritual tyranny of the Romish Church, would acknowledge such a Decree as a law in his dojuinions. But if a Protestant King has subjects, who are enthralled by the Church af Rome, its Decrees even on Discipline will so far be valid, as those infatuated subjects may think it their duty to obey. In thia sense, and in this sense alone, have the mandates of Ch A p. X . Churches of England and Rome. 229 Rome validity in these dominions. But it is a kind of validity, which might overturn, as well the State, as the Church of England. The right of excom- municating Kings, is expressly claimed by the Council of Trent; which therefore has recognised the similar power, which had been claimed by the Lateran Council. The Canon tlierefore of the Lateran Council is not a dead letter, as many have pretended. The Council of Trent has not repealed, but confirmed it **. Nor is it in the power of all the Universities of France and Spain to explain away what has been ratified by a General Council. If the interpretation of the law contradicts the letter of the law, the interpretation is not to be trusted. The best interpreters of the Homish ecclesiastical law are the Popes themselves. And their practical illustrations in excommunicating Sovereigns of this country afford a better rule for our conduct, than the theoretical opinions of the Paris or Salamanca Divines **. s* Nothing can be more unfounded, than the pretence, that the tenets of the Church of Rome are at present different from what Xh&y formerly were. It is wholly impossible to make au alteration in things decreed by an authority pronounced infallible: for it would be a tacit admission of previous error. But this infallibility, according to all Romish writers, includes every thing pertaining to foiith and morals : and, according to the theologi- cal Lectures given at Maynooth, it includes also, in a certaia degree, what relates even to discipline. See Notes 48 — 53. Sucfi a Church is altogether incapable of change. And even if it ivere capable of change, the oaths, which are taken by the Bi- shops and beneficed Clergy, would prevent a change. ^5 The first question proposed to the foreign Universities was this, " Has the Pope or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any ** individual of the Church of Rome any civil authority, power, '* jurisdiction, and pre-eminence v/hatever within the realm of " England?" g30 Comparative View of the Chap. X, IV. Let us now consider the two oaths of fidelity, Tvhich are taken by the Romish Clergy. One of them is taken by the beneficed Clergy in general; the other is taken by Bishops at their consecration, and again by Archbishops, when they receive the Pallium. The former is a part of the Trent Pro- fession of Faith, which was given at length in the sixth Chapter, for the purpose of exhibiting the Romish Creed. But that part, which properly con- tains the oath, it is now necessary to repeat. " / acknoxvledge the Holy, Catholic^ and Jpo- ** stolic Church of Rome to be the mother and mistress " of all Churches ; and I promise and sxvear tru6 " obedience to the Roman Pontiff] successor of the *' Prince of the Apostles St. Peter, and the VicC' *' gerent of Jesus Christ. Further I do, xcithout " doubt, 7xceive and profess all other things, xchick *' have been delivered, defined, and declared by tlie ** sacred Canons, and oecumenical Councils, especially *' by the Holy Council of Trent ; and all things *' contrary thereunto, and all heresies (fxchat soever *' kind, xchich have been condemned, rejected, and *' anathematized by the Church, I in like manner *' condemn, reject, and anathematize. This tjue *' Catholic Faith, out ofxvhich no one can be saved, *' England?" — But the question should have run thus, Does the Church of Rome claim any Ay;»7V»fl/ authority, which may qj/ixf temporal concerns within the realm of England. The Universities denied that the Pope has any mi/ authority in this country. But they could not have denied, that the Church of Rome claims a spiritual autliority, which deeply affects the tcnjporal concenvf of tin's Kingdom. Chap. X. Churches of Efigland and Rome. 231 " which by these presents I profess and verily hold, " / do promiscy voWy and swear^ most Jirmly *' to keep and confess (by God's help) entire and " inviolate to the last breath of my life ; and that *' / will take care^ as far as in me lies, that the same " be holden, taught^ and preached by all, xvho are " subject to my controul, and who are connected zvith " my charge. So help me God, and these the holy '' Gospels of God '\'' This oath, by a Decree of the Council of Trent, and a Bull of Pope Pius IV., is required to be taken by all beneficed Clergymen, in the presence of their Bishop, or his Official ; and if they are members of a Chapter, they are required to repeat it in the Chapter ". Now, as the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent are holden in such high estimation at the College of Maynooth, that even in points of Discipline they are considered as a " Manual of the Clergy ^V' ^^^ might conclude without further infor- mation, that this oath was taken by the beneficed Romish Clergy in Ireland. But if any doubt re» mained, that doubt would be removed by the decla- ration of Dr. Troy, titular Archbishop of Dublin, who says, that it is taken only " on the appointment to a benefice ^' ;" that is, that the oath is taken only "^ The Latin original, of which tliis is a translation, has beea already given in Note 21 to Ch.VI. It is annexed also with the Bull of Pope Pius IV., to the Acts of the Council of Trent, in the Col- lection published by Labbe and Cossart, Tom, XIV. col. 944. '^ See Notes 17, 18, to Chap. VI, The oath is of course taken in the words of the Latin original, or the same form would not be every where observed. ^^ See Note 31 to Ch. II. '^ See Dr. Troy's Letter, in the Second Appendix to Sir JT. C. Hippisley's Speech of 1810, p. 24, 25. 232 Comparative View of the Chap. X. where the Council of Trent requires, that it shall be taken. But still the great body of the Romish Clergy in Ireland will sooner or later be appointed to some benefice, and therefore will sooner or later take the oath. Indeed we want only to know, that they who are in possession of an office, take the oaih of office. But whoever swears, that he holds the Cimrch of Rome to be the mistress of all Churches must necessarily be hostile to the Church, which is now established. He must consider it as his duty to use every effiDrt in regaining for the mistress, what is now usurped by the servant. Again, whoever swears, that he " without doubt, receives and professes all ** other things, which have beendelivered, defined, and *' declared by the sacred Canons, and oecumenical *' Councils," undoubtedly swears to that, which is inconsistent with the allegiance due to his lawful Sovereign. It is useless to declare, that when he swears " obedience to the Pope," he means obedience only in spirituals: for among the things, which have been delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons and oecumenical Councils, there are things, which affect as much the State of this country, as they do the established Church ^°. The Canons, which relate to Discipline^ no less tlian the Canons which relate to Faith and Morals, will be considered as binding by the person, who swears to ** Dr. Delahogue himself, in reference to such Canons and Decrees of General Councils, says, <• Ex his omnibus Concilio- *• rum gencralium Decrctis, ex quibus Patres adversus Hareticos^ " vel quoquomodo eis liebellcs, pcenas temporales cumulant cum ** spiritualibus, nianifestum est Ecclesiam credidisse, se a Christo •* allquam accepissp poteetatem in Temporalibus," De EcclcsiA Cbristi, p. 264?. Chap. X. Churches of England and Rome. 233 receive them all. This very oath therefore confutes the argument, which is founded en the distinction between the obligation of Canons relating to Doctrine, and the obligation of Canons relating to DiscipHne **. *• Sir J. C. Hippisley, in his Speech, May 18, 1810, says in a Note at p. 71, *' The distinction between canons of faith and " discipline, and the relative obligation imposed by them, should " ever be kept in view in the discussion of this question." In- deed this distinction is perpetually urged ; the former being re- presented as binding, but not the latter. Now if a man swears to both, he is bound by both. On the other hand, if the Romish Clergy in Ireland have really the option of accepting or rejecting the Canons on Discipline, it is no consolation to know, that they might reject them, if they tmuld, when we have proof that they do not reject them. It is useless to argue from a distinction of names, when equal reception is given to the things. But not only the Canons of Councils, which relate to Dis- cipline, are thus received by the Romish Clergy in Ireland : the bare Decree of a Pope, relating to discipline, though not sanc- tioned by a Council, is declared to be valid in the theological Lec- tures at Maynooth. At p. 368 of the treatise De Ecclesid Christi is maintained the following proposition : " Romanus Pontifexjws habet condendi Decreta, quae ad omnes et singidas Ecclesias di- rigantur." He then proceeds, " Probatur 1'"° pro Decretis de Fide," &c. He afterwards proceeds, *' Probatur 2''° De rebus " Disciplines universalis leges sancire posse S. Poniificem, quae, ** servatis servandis, omnes Ecclesias obligandi vim habent. Quot ** enim Discipline capita, quae arctissimam, sive cupi dogmate, •• sive cum bono regimiyie Ecclesiae connexionem habent! Ergo *' jus de his decernendi pertinere debet ad Romanum Pontificem, " cui incumbit universalis Ecclesiae cura." If the Pope thenmakes a Decree on Discipline, and that Decree has any connexion either with Doctrine, or with the ivell-governing of the Church, that De- cree, according to the principles maintained in the College of Maynooth, is a Decree which ought to be obeyed. When such principles are maintained, there is no latitude, which may not be given to the efficacy of papal authority. The Pope may deem, that the well-governing of the Church requires the ex- comraunicatioa 234< Comparative View of the Chap. X. Let the third Canon then of the fourth Lateran Council, be called only a Canon about Disciplhiet and the whole body of the beneficed Clergy in Ire- land, who belong to the Romish Church, are bound by their oath to obey it. The right to excom- municate and depose Princes, w ho refuse to assist in the extirpation of heresy, is acknowledged therefore by this oath of fidelity to the Pope ^*. And how this oath of fidelity to the Pope is compatible with the oath of allegiance to the King, is more than all the casuists in the Church of Rome will be able to explain. communication and deposition of his Majesty, and the Decree will come under the predicament, " jus de his decernendi per- *' tinere debet ad Romanum Pontificera." Of this tenet we find a very good explanation given by Bellarmine : " Potest ac debet " Pontifex omnibus Christianis eajubere atque ad ea cogere, ad *• quae quilibet eorum, secundum statum suum tenetur, id est, *' singulos cogere, ut eo modo Deo serviant, quo secundum statum " suum debent. Debent autem Reges Deo servire defendendo ** Ecclesiam, et puniendo hcereticos ct schismaticos. — Ergo potest *' ac debet Wcgibnajiibere, ut hoc faciant, et nisi fecerint, etiam " cogere per cxcomnmnicationem aliasque commodas rationes." De Romano Pontifice, lib. V. cap. 6. " In p. 20. of Sir J. C. Hippisley's Speech on April 24-, 1812, we find the following passage relative to the deposing power ; " That many individual Popes have held and have acted " upon such principles is but too well substantiated ; but it is ** contended by the Catholics, that no General Coinicil, nor the *' See of Rome, properly recognised as such in Cathedra, ever *' declared such Doctrines to be the Doctrines of the Church." < But if they have not declared them to be the Doctrines of the Church, have they not declared them to be the Discipline of tho Church? If such things arc declared by General Councils, and moreover if such declarations become rules of action, of what consequence is it to those, who feel the action, whether it goes by the name of Doctrine or Discipline ? When a man is knocked down, docs he think it necessary to i\sk, whether the club is of ^Im, or of oak ? Chap. X. Churches of England and Rome, 235 The oath taken by Bishops at their Consecration, which is a very long one, is contained in the Pon- tificale Romamim Clementis VIII. Pont. Max.jussu restitution atque editum. Romce \59S.JoL Another edition of this Pontifical was published at Paris in 1664!, by the title Pontificale Romanum Clementis VIII. primum, mmc denuo Urbani VIII. auctoritate recognitum. 1 have examined the Episcopal oath in both editions, and have discovered no difference. I will copy it therefore as contained at p. 79. of the former, and at p. 69- of the latter edition ^'. " Ego " N. Electus EccksicB N. ah hac hora in antea ^'Jidelis, et obediens ero beato Petro Jpostolo, *' sanctceque Romajice Ecclesice, et Domino jiosti^o, " Domino N. PapcE N. suisque successoribus canonice " i?itrantibus. No7i ero in consilio, aut consensu^ " vel facto, ut vitam perdant, aut membrum ; seu " capiantur mala captione ; aut in eos violenter ma- " 71US quomodoUbet ingerantur ; *Del injuries aliquce. " inferantur, quovis quccsito colore. Consilium vero, *' quod mihi credituri sunt, per se, aut Nuntios suos, " seu Utteras, ad eorum damnum, me sciente, nemini *' pandam. Papatum Romanum, et Regalia sancti " Petri adjutor eis ero ad retinendum, et defenden- " dum, sal-vo mco ordine ^+, contra omnem hominem. ^^ Several English translations have been already given of this oath, but I do not know, that the original Latin has been given in any of the late publications. And I give it onl^ in the Latin, because the meaning of several passages has been disputed. '^+ Of the words salvo meo ordine we find the following expla- nation at p. 10, of the Notes to Sir J. C. Hippisley's Speech of Aprils^, 1812, which explanation is taken from Father O'Leary's Answer to the Bishop of Cloyne. He says, *' In the midst of it " is inserted in express words, a saving clause, which speaks the " dignity ^36 Comparative View of the Chap. X. " Legatum Apostolicce sedis in eundo, et redeundo ** honorofice tractaboy et in suis Jiecessitatibus adjii' " vabo. Jura, honores, privilegia, et auctoritatem " Sanctce Romatice EccltsicEf Domini 7iostri Papce ♦* dignity of Catholic Bishops, and reconciles their allegiance to *• their respective Sovereigns, with the canonical obedience due ** to the Head Pastor; • Salvo nieo ordine.* This clause does ** away every difficulty, and leaves the Sceptre in the Prince's *' hands, while it leaves the Censer in the hands of the Pontiff." —Now every one who reads this explanation of^ salvo meo ordine, which is here said to have been *^ inserted,'* will conclude, that it has been lately inserted, and inserted as a saving clause of al- legiance to the King. But it is so far from being a modern in- sertion, that it has uniformly occupied a place in the Episcopal oath. The very edition, from which the copy in the text was taken, was printed at Rome in 1595, by authority of Pope Cle- ment VIII. It is again in the edition published in ISS* by au- thority of Pope Urban VIII. It is contained also in editions which preceded that of 1595 ; for instance, in the Venice edition of 1561. It must have been contained also in Manuscripts of the Pontifical: for the Preface to the edition of 1595 declares that, " nihil ab antiquis Pontificalium codicibus alienum aut dis- " crepans irrepserit.'' Consequently the clause " salvo meo or- ** dine" could not have been inserted as a saving clause of alle- giance to the Protestant Kings of England. Besides, if it had been intended as a saving clause of allegiance to the King, it would have been expressed, not by * salvo meo ordine,' but by * salvo meo rege,' or * salvo jure mei regis,' or some similar ex- pression. There cannot be a doubt that * ordine' means ' ordine monastico.' In former times, when this oath was first used, it sel- dom happened, that a man was consecrated Bishop, who had not previously belonged to some monastic Order, the rights of which he was particularly pledged to defend, and of which the mopastic Orders were particularly jealous. In taking therefore an oath of obedience to the Pope, it was deemed necessary to stipulate, that iiuch obedience should not prejudice the privileges of his mvn Order. But to pretend, that the clause was inserted for the pur- pose of saving allegiance to the Kings of England, is so absurd^ tl/at we may justly wonder it could ever obtain credit. Chap. X. Churches of England and Rome. 237 *' et successorum pTcedictoruniy conservare^ defender e, ** augere, promovere curabo. Neque ero in consiliOy *' vel facto, sen tractatu, in quibus contra ipsum ** Dominum nostrum, vel eandem Romanam Ecck' " siam allqua sinistra, vel prcEJudicialia personarumy ^* juris, honoris, status, et potestatis eorum machi- *' nentur. Et, si talia a qxdbuscumque tract ari, vel ^^ procurari novero, impediam hoc pro posse, et " quant 0 citius potei^o, signiftcabo eidem Domino " nostra, vel alteri, per quern possit ad ipsius no- " titiam pervenire. Regulas sanctorum Patrum, ** decreta, ordinationes, seu dispositiones, reserva- " tiones, provisiones, et mandata apostolica, totis " viribus observabo, et faciam ab a His observari. " H(£reticos, schismaticosj et rebelles eidem Domino " nostro, vel successor i bus predict is pro posse per- " sequar, et impugnabo ^K Vocatus ad synodum^ ** This sentence Pope Pius VI., by a Rescript dated June 1791, " was graciously pleased to grant" that the Irish Bishops might omit. (See No. XVI. of Sir J. C. Hippisley's Appendix.) Since then they have theop^wn, I conclude that theyo/^;^c^ by an oath, which they have taken. And that the non-obser- vance of faith with heretics is an acknowledged principle among them, is an assertion, which cannot be made without great injustice. Indeed if I may judge from my own personal experience, there is no more reason to doubt their honour and integrity in every thing relating to the common intercourse of life, than the honour and integrity of Protestants themselves. But in things relating to 7^eligion, that anomaly of government, a foreign jurisdiction in spiritual concerns, distracts their allegiance, and makes them obedient to the Pope w here they onglit to be, and arc probably inclined to be obedient to the King. The intervention of an e.vternal alle- giance affords a perpetual drawback on their alle- giance at home. The theoretical distinction between spiritual obedience to the Pope, and temporal obe- dience to the King, cannot always be observed in practice : and they may easily mistake for a spiritual concern, what their Sovereiirn might regard as a teinporal concern. In such a dilemma, the power which disposes of the soul, would be obeyed in preference to the power, which can only atiect the body. The plea, which they often urge, that the Protestant Dissenters do not, any more than them- selves, acknowledge the King's Suj)rcmacy in spiri- tual concerns, is nothing to the purpose. The Chap. X. Churches ofE?igland and Home. 245 Protestant Dissenters acknowledge no foreign Head : lo whomsoever they may confide the direction of their spiritual concerns, those persons are all subjects of his Majesty. And if the Romanists of this country would likewise renounce all foreign jurisdiction, if they would consent to choose a Popfe of their own, who was a native of this country, and a subject of his Majesty, they would then, as Citizens of the State, be on the same footing with the Pi^o- testant Dissenters. They might then take the oath of Supremacy, which is merely negative, and pro- vides only for the rejection oi foi^eign interference. The discipline of their Church, as they themselves have repeatedly declared, is not a matter o^ general obligation. They might retain therefore the esta- blished Doctrines of their Church, and new-model its Discipline, as present circumstances require. They might even in their oxvn estimation remain good Catholics^ and yet altogether cease to be Papists, These observations on the baneful influence of the authority exercised by the See of Rome in countries subject to other Princes, may be concluded by a relation of what was done on that subject by the Empress Catherine II. ; who was one of the most profound politicians, that ever sat upon a throne. When the partition of Poland had brought under her dominion a considerable population professing the Romish religion, she determined to provide for their spiritual wants in a manner, which should do no injury to the State. She resolved therefore to erect a Popedom in her oivn dominions, and at once to 246 Comparative View of the Chap. X. prohibit all foreign interference. The Decree, which she issued on this occasion, bearing date Jan. 17, 1782, is given by Sir J. C. Hippisley, both in the Appendix to his Speech of 1810, and in the Notes to his Speech of 1812^*. From this valuable document, I will transcribe the first, second, third, fifth, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and thirteenth Articles, as being those, which relate to the present subject. " 1. — We now erect the City of ^lohilow, the capital of the government of the same name, into an Archbishoprick of the Roman Catholic Religion, including within the jurisdiction of its archbishoprick all the churches and convents of the said Religion which are in the governments of ]\Iohilo\v and of Polotski, as well as those of our two capitals, and in all other parts of the Russian Empire. " II. — yVo, graciously name"^^ the Bishop Stanis- laus Tsciies Tschcrsovisch, to the Archbishoprick See of the Roman Catliolic Church of Mohilow. "III. — To aid the same in his functions, we appoint a co-adjutor, and elevate to that dignity the Abbot John Benislasshi, Canon of theArchiepiscopal Church of Mohilow, and Superior of Danburg; and ice have given orders that measures shall be taken for his elevation to the Episcopacy'^ ^. '''■ See No. XX. of the former, or p. 85, of the latter. '' Here is actual appointment, not a mere Veto ; though even this is refused by the Romish Bishops of Ireland. In like man- ner the King of Prussia has always actually appointed to the Romish Bishopricks in his dominions, whether in Silesia or in Poland. And even the King of Great Britain appoints the Romish Bishop of Canada. "* Here again the whole power of raising to the Episcopacy is vested in the Crown. Chap. X. Churches of England and Rome. 247 " v.— The Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church of Mohilow shall not receive any order from any person xvhatever, besides us and our Senate"^ K " VIII. — The appointment of Superiors and Heads of Convents, of Curates for the parishes, and of all other promotions to the ecclesiastical degrees of the Roman Catholic Religion, shall be dependent, in all the extent of the Russian Empire^ on the zvill of the Archbishop xvhoyn we have appoint ed "^^ : and we order him to examine, either personally, or by means of his co-adjutor, all the aforesaid superiors and curates ; to let those remain who were born our subjects, or are become such, to appoint others that are so, and to dismiss and send away those who may have come from foreign countries, and not to suffer any of them to come in for the future, forbidding them to return, under the penalty of being juridically prosecuted for having disobeyed the decrees of thQ Supreme Governmei'it ^^. " X. — We confirm the prohibition expressed in our decrees of July 3d, 1779, addressed to the Governor-General of White Russia, and of Jan. 31st, 1780, to all the Governors General, not to permit tilt entrance within our frontiers, of ecclesiastics of foreign appointment "' ; and we direct that, where- ^' Here the Interference of the Pope in the Russian Empire is prohibited altogether. '^ Thus the Archbishop of Mohilow was made Metropolitan of all the Russians professing the Romish Faith. And, as by the- fifth Article he was forbidden to receive any order from any per- son whatever, beside the Empress and the Senate, he became a Metropolitan perfectly independent of the Pope. 7^ A very wise measure for the prevention of foreign inter= ference, and foreign intrigue. ^^ Here is a total end of the Papers appointmento 248 Comparative View of the CnAr. X. ever any of them appear, they shall be sent back, and threatened with being delivered over to the Tribunals of our Departments, to be judged accord- ing to the laws : and finally, those who, contrary to this decree, receive them, without the permission of the Archbishop, shall be sent to the competent tribunals, to be there judged according to the laws. " XL — We command that all the Religious Orders of the Romish Religion shall only be depend- ant on the Archbishop of Mohilow, on his co-ad- jutor, and on his consistory, without daring to submit to any other ecclesiastical poxcer out of our Empire ", to send to such power any portion of their incomes, or to have any connection with it, under the penalty of being juridically prosecuted for disobeying the laws of the Supreme Government. *' XIII. — We confirm our preceding Decrees, which prohibit the ixccption of any Bull from the Pupe^ or any other writings sent in his name; order- ing that the same shall be sent to our Senate, rchOy after having examined their contents, and particu- larly any thing that may be found contrary to the lazvs of the Russian Empire, or to the rights of the Ecclesiastical power which we have received j'rom God, shall be obliged to communicate to us its Opinion, and to wait our permission or prohibition iu rendering public such bulls or vvritings ^''." '* Hereia a total overthrow ofthe Pope 's pretended 5M/jrewacy. '° Though the Empress had already prohibited the reception of any Bull from the Pope on the part of the Metropolitan, yet as she could not prevent the Pope from sending, it was a wise pre- caution to direct that if in case a Bull should \ni sent, it should he rticeivcd only by the Senate, who should make their report to her Chap. X. Chuyxhes of England and Rome. 249 By this master-piece of policy did the Empress Catherine divest herself at once of that foreign inter- ference in the spiritual concerns of her dominions, of which she well knew the destructive influence. It is true, that the Pope was permitted to send a Pallium to the new Metropolitan by the hands of Cardinal Archetti. But such ceremonies are as insignificant on the one hand, as they are splendid on the other. Whether adorned with the Pallium, or clad only in the robes of a Bishop, the Metro- politan of Mohilow owed his real elevation to the authority of his lawful Sovereign. But lest the ceremony should be misunderstood or abused, the Empress took care to be present on the occasion. It appears then, that there are no more Papists in the Russian dominions, though probably in their own estimation they are as good Catholics, as before. The Metropolitan of IMohilow, by consecrating other Bishops, can perpetuate Episcopacy, in its spiritual sense, as Episcopacy is perpetuated in Protestant countries. And the aid of the Pope is no more wanted for the Catholic Bishops in Russia, than for the Protestant Bishops in Englajid and Ireland. Nor would it be wanted for the Catholic Bishops in our own country, if they would consent to put the government of their Church on the same footing as in Russia, in Prussia, and our own Province of Canada. The examples of three different Sovereigns, 7iot in communion with the Church of Ro?ue, having the sole appointment to Catholic bishopricks, might her Majest}'. And then if she permitted the pubhcation of any such writings, their authority was derived from the Sovereign of the cmmtri/, and not from any Jbreign potentate, 250 Comparative View, (Spc. Chap. X. surely be sufficient to remove their religious scru- ples. But the resolutions officially published by the titular Bishops of Ireland *', to say nothing of Dr. Droingoole's Address to the Catholic Board '*, afford no hope, that they will ever admit an accom- modation so necessary to the welfare of all parties* For it is wholly impossible, that they, whose alle- giance is divided, should be as good subjects, as they whose allegiance is entire. The question of Church-authority, as exercised by the Church of England on the one hand, and by the Church of Rome on the other, is now brought to a conclusion. And no doubt will probably remain, that the authority, exercised by the latter, is incompatible with the welfare, both of other Churches, and of other States. In conducting this proof, I have been led by the connection between the Church and the State in this country to the examination of subjects, not promised in the title of the Chapter. But their importance at the present period makes it unnecessary to apologize for their introduction. *' See Nos. VI. VII. of tlic Appendix to Sir J. C. Ilippis- ley's Speech of 1810. **Dr. Dromgoole's Address to the Catholic Board, on the 8th of December 1813, which was originally printed in the Dublin Evening Post, was re-printed in the Protectant Advo- cate for February 1814-. It well deserves an attentive perusal, though it is much too long to be inserted here. APPENDIX CONTENTS. Note (A.) .''L •,:! The Church Authority, examined in the Comparative View, limited to Authority in Controversies of Faith 253 Note (B.) Difficulty of defending the Authority exercised by the Church of England in Controversies of Faith, greatly increased by the diversity of the parties, against which the defence must be con- ducted, and the variety of the demands, to which an Advocate of that Authority is exposed. The mode adopted in the eighth Chapter of the Comparative View the only mode of meeting all objections 254 Note (C.) Of the difficulties attending an Inquiry into the Character of Schism. Causes of the confusion, which have taken place on that subject. Only one criterion by which we can determine, whether they, who separate from an established Church, incur the sin of Schism 262 Note (D.) Futility of the inference, drawn by the Church of Rome, from our Saviour's declaration that St. Peter was the rock; on which he would build his Church. Consequent inutility, as well as im- practicability, of the attempt, made by the early Lutheran and Cahinist Divines, to shexi that our Saviour alluded not to St. Peter, but to himself. The Author's opinion on this subject, which is the opinion of English Commentators in general, defended against the arguments of an objector, who has lately endeavoured to revive the long-exploded opinion of the old Lutheran and Cahinist Divines , 2/3 APPENDIX. Note (A.) The readers of the Comparative View are requested to keep constantly in mind, that the eighth chapter relates to the authority of our Church in controversies of faith, as expressed in the twentieth Article, which is quoted at the beginning of that chapter. We have no concern therefore with the authority exercised by our ecclesiastical courts in secular matters, or in controversies of any kind, except those which relate to articles of faith. A want of due attejition to this necessary distinction has been productive of various mis- takes : and our Church has been supposed to exercise an authority, which it neither does, nor ca)i exercise. When our ecclesiastical courts exercise authority in secular matters, whether it relates to wills, or to divorces, or to controversies about tythe, or indeed to any controversies but controversies o^ faith, their authority is exercised indiscriminately, over Churchmen, and over Dissenters. And since every Court must have some means of enforcing its own orders, a contempt of the Court Ecclesiastical must in such cases be followed by ecclesiastical censures, whatever be the religion, to which the offending party belongs, in this manner Dissenters, as well as Churchmen, may for a contempt of Court be punished in the tirst instance by excommunication, and then by those additional penalties, which the civil power iuHicts in aid of the ecclesiastical, and without which the excommunication of a Dissenter would be a mere brutum fulmen. But the case is widely different, when our ecclesiastical courts exercise their 254 Appendix. authority over those, who impugn the articles of the estabUshed Church. For the exercise of this authority is confined to those wlio belong to the estabUshed Church ; while Dissenters of every description, being protected by the law of the land, both in the free profession of their religious faith, and the free exercise of their religious worship, are thereby exempted from the jurisdiction of the Court Ecclesiastical in things pertaining to faith and zcorship. Nor does the Church of England require a more extensive authority, than in such cases it really has. For the laws of a religious Society, considered merely as such, relate immediately to faith and worship. And though the support of every Society requires that an obedience to its laws be enforced on its own members, yet «o Society can require for its support an obedience to its laws on the part of those, who are not members of it. — The observations con- tained in this Note apply equally to every tiling which is said also in the ninth and tenth chapters relative to the authority or jurisdiction of the Church of England. We have no con- cern whatever in the Comparative View with the jurisdiction of our ecclesiastical courts in secular matters. Note (B.) Whoever undertakes to defend the authority of the Church of England in controversies of faith, undertakes a task of much greater difficulty, than is commonly supposed. For he has to defend it against two opposite parties, and to preserve consistency in his answers to both. He has to defend it against the objections of Romish writers on the one hand, and those of Protestant Dissenters on the other. If he allows too little for the right of private judgment in the concerns of religion, he is accused by the latter of pleading for the intolerance exercised by the Church of Rome. If he allows too much for the right of private judgment, he is in danger of being accused from other quarters, that he surrenders the authority, which is due to the Church of Christ. He must take therefore a station, which lies between the two extremes : for it is only Kuck a station, in which he can repel the attacks of the two Appendix. 255 opposite parties. It was my first object therefore in tlie eighth chapter of the Comparative View, to find such a sta- tion : and when I believed, that I had found it, my next object was, to intrench myself in that station in such a manner, that I might repel the attacks of Romish writers on the one hand, and of Protestant Dissenters on the other. In answer to the former, I undertook to prove, " that the Church of " England carries its authority in controversies of faith no fur- " ther, than is necessary for its omi preservation: but that the *' Church of Rome carries its authority so far, as to trample *' on the rights of all other Churches." In answer to the latter, I undertook to prove, " that Protestants in general, " the Dissenters themselves not excepted, exercise their *' spiritual authority on the same principle, and carry it to the " very same extent, as the Church of England." Hence I concluded, that not even the Dissenters in this country had any reason to complain of the authority exercised by the established Church in controversies of faith. At the same time being aware of a material objection, which not only mai/ be, but frequently has been made to the argument, which I was then conducting, I thought it necessary to obviate that objection. For if that objection were valid, it would be absolutely impossible to defend the authority of the Church of England against the arguments of the Dissenters. The pretensions of the Church of England would then be carried as high, as the pretensions of the Church oi Rome: and I could have discovered no mode of repelling the charge, that our Church, though called a Protestant Church, is still infected with popery. Is it consistent (say the Dissenters) with genuine Protestantism, which professed to restore the right of private judgment, thus to imitate the Church of Rome, and claim an authority, which destroys that right ? Is it consistent (they say) in the Church of England, which could not have reared its head without the exercise of that right, so far to forget its own conduct, that being now an established Church, it should claim in its turn the spiritual dominion, from which the Reformation is supposed to have delivered us ? For that the authority of our Church, in controversies of faith, is not a mere authority of order (as it is sometimes 256 Appendix. called by way of excuse), or an authority, to which only respect is due, but an authority of strict obligation, must be evident to every one who considers, that disobedience of that authority on the part of a Clergyman is punishable by the forfeiture of his ecclesiastical preferments. It makes uo difference in this respect, whether the authority be called ab' solute, or relative ; whether the Church, which exercises such authority, supposes itself infallible, or not. The authority isexeicsed: and the persons, over whom it is exercised, have no more the option, whether they will obey, or not, than v.'hether they will obey an Act of Parliament, or not. There is only one mode therefore of solving the dlfiiculty, in which we are thus involved ; and that is by having recourse to the following proposition. " If our conscience will not *' allow us to comply Mith those terms, which are oflFered by " the Established Church, we may zdthdraw from its com- " munion and profess Christianity under anif form, which wc *^ may think proper to adopt."* The truth of this positioi is indisputable : for the law of the land, which has given to our Church an establishment, has granted to the faith and worship of all other Christians complete protection. Whetlier the same liberty of withdrawing from the Established Church, existed in the earlier ages of the Reformation, is a question, with which I was not concerned. I was comparing the Churches of England and Rome according to their present state. The situation of the Church of Rome is the same at present, as it has been ever since the holding of the Council of Trent : nor is there any authority, according to the princi- ples of that Church, which can make an alteration, except another General Council. But no such authority is wanted to alter the situation of the Church of England : and it has con- sequently undergone material alterations. The situation of the Church of England, in respect to spiritual poicer, is very different now from rthat it was before the writ was abolished Dc Harctico comburendo. This was abohshcd in the time of Charles li. Then came the Act of Toleration in the time * See the Comparative View, p. l66. Appendix. 257 of William III, which was made expressly (as declared in the preamble) for the relief of " scrupulous comciences in the exercise of religion." And the protection, thus afforded, has been gradually on the increase, till it was completed by the late Religious Worship Act. The fact therefore is indis- putable, that as the Church of England is now circumstanced, ail persons, who cannot conscientiously partake of its faith and worship, are at liberty to withdraw from its communion. And the existence of this liberty is fully sufficient to obviate every objection, which may be made to our present exercise of Church Authority in controversies of faith. For though it is neither necessary, nor expedient, that one religious Society should interfere with the faith and worship of another religious Society, yet every Society must have authority over its own members, or the Society would be soon dissolved. It must have the power of expelling those who persist in acting con- trary to its rules : and if the persons, so expelled, held offices in the Church, they have no reason to complain, since in every Society obedience to its rules is a condition of office. But then the persons, thus removed from the Society, must be considered as withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Society. Such were the principles, on which I endeavoured to defend the authority now exercised by the Church of England in controversies of faith : and these principles were briefly stated in the following words : " If the Church of England '' went beyond the simple act of removing those, who had ** violated the terms of communion, it would do more than is '^ necessary for its own preservation. For the welfare of a '* religious Society, in things relating to faith, requires nothing " more, than that they who counteract it, should be made to " withdraw from it. , There the jurisdiction of every Church " in matters of faith should cease; and there the jurisdiction *' of the Established Church in matters of faith does cease. " In the faith and worship of other Societies it does not pre- *' sume to interfere : but recognises, to the utmost extent, *' the right of every man to worship God according to his " conscience. Nor are even its own members compelled to ** continue members against tTaeir will ; though of necessitj ./ 258 Appendix. *' it requires a compliance with its rules from those, who " chuse to remain in its communion."* From the advocates of the Church of Rome I was pre- pared to expect some answer to this passage : for it is in direct opposition to the principles of their Church. No Romanist can allow, that the jurisdiction of the Church in matters of faith should be confined to the members of the Church. Ecclesia suam retinet jurisdictionem in omnes Apostatas, Hzereticos, et Schismaticos, quanquam ad illius corpus non jam pertineant. This is the doctrine maintained in the College of Maynooth.f The same doctrine is maintained also in the Roman Catechism. And that in countries, where the Romish religion lies under restrahit, a distinction should be made between a jurisdiction of right, and a jurisdiction of fact, a distinction which implies, that the jurisdiction would he exercised if it could, can excite no surprise. The doctrine of Nulla salus extra ecclesiam leads of necessity to an inter- ference in the faith and worship of other Christians. But the Church of England does not exclude other Christians from the hope of salvation. The eighteenth Article says, " Holy " Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus " Christ, whereby men must be saved." But it is no where asserted, that the oult/ Society of Christians, w hich can hope for salvation, is that particular Society which is denoted the Church of England. There is a tolerating spirit therefore, which is breathed in the very Articles of our Religion ; and they who are properly endowed with this spirit, will never wish to prevent their Christian brethren from worshipping God in their own way. There /nay indeed be individuals of an intolerant disposition, as well in the Church of England as in the Church of Rome : but intolerance is certainly not the general character of our Church. Here however the advocates of the Church of Rome inter- pose, and exclaim, — The spirit of toleration, which you ascribe to the Church of England, should be ascribed only to the State. If your Church acknowledges, as you say, the • See p. 1 7 1 . of the Comparative \'iew. t Sec the treatise De E^Haid Clninti, p. 39*. \ Appendix. 259 right of every man (that is of every Christian man) * to wor- ship God according to his conscience, it is because your Church cannot now do otherwise. If your Church recognise* that right by its actions, in leaving other Christians undisturbed in the exercise of their worship (which you will say perhaps is better than doing it by mere declarations) it is at best the acknowledgment of a right, which you have no longer the power to dispute. It is true, that " in the faith and worship of other Societies it does not presume to interfere :" but what is the reason of this forbearance ? No other, than this ; that the law of the land has interposed, and set bounds to its inter- ference. Unless therefore you can shew, that your Church would not interfere, even if it could interfere, you have no reason to represent our Church as less tolerant, than your own. And this you will find it difficult to do. For though your Church cannot at present exercise authority in contro- versies of faith, over those who do not belong to it, the claim to that authority is still urged by some of your own writers, who contend that even now such authority attaches to the Church, though its operation has been suspended by motives of expediency on the part of the State. Nay, it has been asserted, that your Church has not only never relinquished its claim to such authority, but that it never can relinquish it. A Church, which claims ^wihoniy jure divino, can never consent to the new-fangled doctrine, that heretics and schis- matics may believe and worship according to their own good pleasure. Where then (concludes the Romanist) lies the difference between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, when the latter is considered merely as a Church, or without reference to the State ? Does not the same maxim attach to both, Ecclesia suam retinet jurisdictionem in omnes Apostatas, Hareticos, et Schismaticos? That your Church claims at least such jurisdiction, appears further from the indisputable fact, that it exercised such jurisdiction, before * An explanation is hardly necessary on this point, since a Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome, can relate to no other faith and worship, than the faith and worship of Christia7is. 26o Appendix. the law of tlie land interfered to prevent it. Before the writ de fi(Eretico cotnhurendo was abolished by a Statute of Charles II, heretics were condemned to the flames for no other offence, than that of dissenting from the Established Creed of the English Church. Blackstone himself has acknowledged four such examples ; two Anabaptists in the seventeenth of Elizabeth, and two Arians in the ninth of James I.* Such is the sum and substance of the objections, which have been made to the principles, on which I have endea- voured to defend the authority exercised by the Church of England in controversies of faith. And I must acknowledge, that, if in this country, where the alliance is so close between Church and State, it is allowable to separate the one from the other, I know not how the Church of England can be vindicated from the charge which is laid to it, as well by Protestant Dissenters, as by the Church of Rome. If it is true, that the Church of England denies to those who dissent from it, the right of worshipping God according to their conscience, it can have no more pretension to the character of toleration, than the Church of Rome. And if it be further true, that our Church can 7iever acknowledge the right of other Christians to worship God according to their conscience, because it holds an authority which it possesses jure divino, we must acknowledge at once, that in our pretensions to Church Authority, we are on a footing of perfect equality with the Church of Rome. If we hold that our Church, in * With particular reference to the two last-mentioned examples, a Letter was addressed to me in the Morning Chronicle, soon after the pubhcation of the first edition, in which the writer desired me, cither to explain the difference in the mode of prosecuting heretics, between the Churches of England and Home, or to acknowledge that both Churches were on a footing of equality with respect to intoler- ance. Not choosing to enter into a newspaper controversy about what is called the Catholic question, I resolved to defer the answer till a new edition was published of the Comparative View. And 1 hope that the present Note will be sufficient to shew, that the two Churches, witli respect to intolerance, are not on a footing of pquality. Appendix. 261 controversies of faith, has still an authority dejure, though no longer an authority de facto, over the members of other Christian societies, we hold the same doctrine with the College of Maynooth, Ecclesia suam retinet jurisdictionem in omries Apostatas, Hcereticos, et Sckismaticos, quanquam ad illius corpus nan jam perfineant. But I really do not see how it is possible to separate in this country the Church from the State. The alliance between them is so close, that the character, which attaches to the latter, must also attach to the former. Though the truth of the doctrines maintained by our Church has no dependence on the decisions of the State, the establishment of our Church depends wholly and solely on the authority of the State. And it is only in its quality of an established Church, that the Church of England can even ask, whether it has a right to interfere with the faith and worship of other Societies. No one would ask, whether the Presbyterians in this country had a right to interfere with the Independents, or the Inde- pendents with the Baptists, or the Baptists with the Quakers. If therefore the Church of England had no establishment, the question, whether it had authority over any other than its own members (an authority possessed by every Society) could not even be entertained. It is evident, therefore, that when several religious Societies exist in the same State, no one Society can have authority over another, but what it derives from the paramount authority, to which all of them owe obedience. The authority therefore of the Church of England over other religious Societies is precisely that, which the State has determined that it shall be. But the State, by various Acts, has determined, that in controversies oi faith the authority of the Church of England is confined to its own members. The same power, which has granted to our Church an establishment, has granted to all other Christians in this country complete toleration, and consequently an exemption from the jurisdiction of the Church in controver- sies of faith. The claim therefore to such jurisdiction no longer exists : and it is neither wise in the friends of our Church to struggle for the claim, nor fair in its adversaries to contend, that the claim is still urged by the Church itself. 262 Appendix. Though the religious liberty, now enjoyed in this countrj', originated with the State, the adoption of it by the Church has been a matter of choice, as well as a matter of necessity. It is congenial with the verj- principles of our religion, which claims not the privilege of exclusive salvation. And if (what can neither be denied nor be justified) four instances have occurred in the annals of our Church, in which religious dissent has been punished with death, tliey bear no propor- tion to the similar examples in the annals of the Church of Rome. They occurred at a period when we were not wholly disengaged from the spirit of intolerance, which dis- tinguishes the Church from which we seceded, and ever must distinguish a Church which allows not the hope of salvation to other Christians. But though the Church of Rome has not changed, the Church of England has changed in its pretensions to spiritual authority. We are no longer what we were, before the writ was abolished de haretico comburendo : and it is unfair to argue from our former to our present state. Our ecclesiastical and our civil authorities go hand in hand : and as the authority of our Church at present exists, it certainly claims no jurisdiction in controversies of faith over any other than its own members. And this juris- diction it must claim, or it loses the power of self-preser- vation. Note (C.) In Note 6 to Chapter VIII, I represented all Schism as injurious ; but I confined the sin of Schism to ascparation from the Church, where the party seceding had not the plea of conscience to inge in his defence. But it has been ob- jected, that there is no ground for such a distinction ; that schism is something sinful in its own nature ; consequently that there can be no schism, without sin ; and therefore tliat they who make distinctions do not reprobate schism so strongly as they ought. Now this objection is nothing more than the proposal of another definition. The term Scliism is Appendix. 263 here defined^ as a term including among other notions the notion of sin. But this is not the only definition, and cer- tainly not the best. Dr. Johnson's definition of Schism is, " A separation or division in the Church of God." This defi- nition does not necessarily include the notion of sin. For unless a separation in the Church may take place without sin, it is useless for us to talk about the grounds on which we separated from the Church of Rome. If a thing is sinful in itself, there are no grounds on which we can defend it. The Greek word (x'^iaixa, from which the English word schism is derived, denotes simply division, or separation, without the association of any other notion. Thus St. John (vii. 43.) says, (Tylfffxa ovv ev T(t) o^Xw kyevero oi avrov, which means nothing more, than that the people were divided in their opinions concerning Christ. In the same sense St. John uses it again in Chap. ix. l6. Koi (y^icrixa nv ev aJroTs. And again in Chap. x. IQ. ' Congregation of Christians believes also, that it teaches tlie pure word of God, it is easy to foresee the result of a controversy about the sin of Schism, according to the present definition. Each party will claim the honour of being a Society/ of Christ's forming, a Society therefore J M re divitio ; each party will contend that opposition to a Divine Institution must be sinful ; each party will con- tend, that what is sinful at one time, must be sinful at another. Each party therefore will conclude, that the members of all other parties are involved in the sin of Schism. Such are the consequences of considering Schism as something 7iecessarilu sinful. But if we consider it, as something, that moj/, or may ?iot be sinful according to circumstances, and adopt the criterion proposed in the Comparative View, the question of Schism may be brought to an issue. For where dissent is really conscientious, the plea of conscience admits of a proof, which must be acknowledged by all parties. Lastly, it is urged, that whatever difficulties may attend the application of the term Schism, as defined in the preced- ing paragraph, it is the sense in which it was applied by our Reformers, who have taught us to proi/ against Schism, which they would not have done, if they had not considered it as siiful. Now it so happens, that throughout the Liturgy, the word " Schism" occurs in only two places, and that iu neither of those places did it proceed from our Reformers. Lideed our Reformers rather avoided tlie use of the term Schism ; for at the commencement of the Reformation they themselves were the persons, to whom the term " Schismatics" was especially applied. While they themselves were sepa- ratists from the Church of Rome, there neither were, nor could 112 Appendix. be, separatists from the Church of England. It was necessary that the Church of England should be formed and established, before a question could arise about a separation from it- llence the word Schism never occurs in our Articles. But when the Canons were composed in the time of James I, a separation from the established Church had taken place, occasioned chiefly by those, who had learnt their theology' at Geneva, and who at length overturned the established Church. Hence the titles of the 9, 10, and 1 1th Canons are, " Authors of Schism in the Church of England censured — Maintainers of Schismatics in the Church of England censured. — Main- tainers of Conventicles censured." But it is remarkable, that though the terms " Schism," and " Schismatic" occur in some of the titles, they do not occur in the text, of the Canons. With respect to the Liturgy, the only places, in which either of these terms occurs, are in the Litany, and the Service for the King's Accession to the Throne. In this latter Ser\ice, the Collect used before the Epistle contains the following passage, " Let not heresies and false doctrines disturb the *' peace of the Church, nor schisms and causeless divisions " weaken it." Here the expression " causeless divisions" appears to have been added for the purpose of explaining the word " schisms. " And it is an explanation, which is very consistent with the criterion adopted in the Comparative View ; for they who withdraw themselves from the Establishid Church, and have no plea of conscience to urge in their defence, undoubtedly make causeless divisions in the Church. The passage of the Litany, in which the word " Schism" is now used, stood thus in the time of Charles 1. " From all " sedition, and privy conspiracy ; from all false doctrine, and " heresy; from hardness of jieart, and contempt of thy word '' and commandment." But in the review of the Liturgy after the Restoration of Charles II, the words rebellion and SCHISM were added to this passage; and they were added, as Wheatley justly remarks, " to deprecate in future " the like subversion of Church and State to what they had " then so lately felt.'* The terms rebhi.lion and schism being added therefore to deprecate the subversion both of the State and of the Church in the lime of Charles i, the persojj* Appendix. 2/3 who added those words, must have had in contemplation the religion of those, who had caused the rebellion. The Schism therefore, which is there meant, is the Scliism of the Calvinists. Now whether their Schism was sinful Schisu), or only erro- neous Schism, is a question, which I shall not undertake to examine. For in zehatever sense we use the term Schism, we have abundant reason for praying to God, that he would be pleased to deliver us from Schism. Indeed there never was a period, when we had more reason to pray fervently, in the words of St. Paul, "iva fxrj jj 2XI2MA ev tm crw/maTi. Note (D.) When the extensive authority, which is claimed by the Church of Rome in controversies of faith, was defended by an appeal to our Saviour's declaration, that St. Peter was a rock, on which his Church should be founded,* the Romish WTiters employed an argument, in which the premises and the inference had so little connexion, that we may justly wonder at the embarrassment, which it occasioned both to the Lutheran and to the Calvinist Divines. For though the Church at large was " built upon the foundation of the " apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" t and though St. Peter in particular may be regarded as a rock, on which the primitive Church, as formed at Jerusalem, was originally founded ; % yet between these * Matth. xvi. 18. t Ephes. ii. 20. I St. Peter laid the foundation for the Church of Jerusalem on the very day, on which the Apostles received the gifts of the Holy Ghost. See Acts ii. 14 — 41. 47. Bishop Pearson in his Exposition of the Creed, Art. IX. says of the Church, " It will be necessary to take " notice, that our Saviour, first speaking of it, mentioned it, as that " which then was not, but afterwards was to be, as when he said unto " the great Apostle, TJiou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build " mif Church. But when he ascended into heaven, and the Holy " Ghost came down, when Peter had converted three thousand souls, " which were added to the hundred and twenty disciples, then was •* there a Church, and that built upon Peter, according to our " Saviour's promise" i2"4 Api'ENlDIX. premises, and the inference, that the Church of Rome is tfi79 'OMOAOriAS. Augustine also explains * super banc petrani by ' super banc Jidem.' Also Basilius Seleucensis says, 'Yavrriv Trjv 'OMOAOTIAN Trerpav Kokecras o Xpiaro^ riETPON ovo/ua^ei. Now whatever distinction be made between the person of St. Peter and the confession of St. Peter, such explanations still refer the expression ewl Trj Trerpa to St. Peter, and not to Christ. But Dr. Clarke in his Note to this passage, says, " That the Rock here " mentioned is not the confession, but the person of Peter, " seems plain from the construction of the words." Dr. Doddridge, having quoted the opinion of Dr. Clarke, adds, that " it seems to suit best with the connection."' Dr. Wells has paraphrased our Saviour's address in the following manner : " Thou art Peter, i. e. a Rock, so named by me *^ as foreseeing that by thy constancy in this confession after " my resurrection and ascension, thou shalt eminently be " what thy name imports, viz. a firm and immoveable pro- " fessor of the truth. And, as upon the foundation of my *' Apostles in general, so upon Thee, this Rock, in a spe- '^ cial manner, namely, as tiie first and most eminent part *^ of the foundation I will bziild my Church" Dr. Macknight, in his Harmony, again applies the word to St. Peter. He says, " In allusion to his surname of Peter, which signifies " a Rock, Jesus promised, that he should have a principal " hand m establishing his kingdom. The Christian Church 280 Appendix. " was to be erected on his labours, as a solid foundation, " so that it should never be destroyed." Dr. Campbell translates the passage, " Thou art named Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church." This translation, inde- pendently of Dr. Campbell's Note, sufficiently shews in what sense he understood it. Bishop Pearce explains the passage in a manner peculiar to himself: but he still applies the word irerpa to St. Peter. i\s Trkrpo^ signifies a stone, and Trerpa signifies both a 7'ock and a stone^ he accommodates the latter to the former, and translates eirl rri ireTpa " upon this stone." In this manner ctti t^ ireTpa is made to har- monize with the 7iame of the Jpustle, e\en when -rreTpo^ is used as a Greek appellative. It is true that the building of a Church upon a stone is a thing not very intelligible : and Bishop Pearce felt himself reduced to the necessity of seek- ing 2t. figurative sense for the word stone, in which he was not very successful. But the very attempt to procure the same meaning for irerpo's and irerpa shews, that in the opinion of Bishop Pearce the expression eiri tt) ireTpa refers, not to Christ, but to St. Peter. To the Commen- taries on Matth. xvi. 18. might be added several Sermons on this text. But it will be sufficient to quote a Sermon by Bishop Bcveridge (Vol. I. Serm. vn), and another by Bishop Hurd (Vol. HI. Serm. xix), in both of which the word " Rock" is referred, not to Christ, but to St. Peter. In short, that expression has been so generally referred to St. Peter by English Divines, that when I translated the Introduction of Michaelis, 1 had never heard of an exception. I omitted therefore the translation of a Note, in which Michaelis had argued for the opinion that the word Hock in Matth. xvi. 18. applied to St. Peter: and I assigned as a reason for the omission, (Vol. 1. p. 383.) that " 1 have never heard of any English Divhic that doubted it." The preceding remarks on tlie celebrated passage Matth. xvi. 18. will serve, 1 hope, as a sufficient apology for my having repruited, without alteration, the 25th Note to Chap. X. of the Comparative View. And nnthout such an apology I could not have ventured to reprint it, as it has been severely censured by a Prelate of great learning, and great importance. Appendix. 281 The place, where it has been subjected to this censure, is not indeed exactly the place, where readers in general would expect to find it. For it is contained in the following publi- cation ; " A Letter to the Honourable and Right Reverend ** the Lord Bishop of Durham, on the origin of the Pelasgi, " and on the original name and pronunciation of the JEolic " Digamma, in answer to Professor Marsh's Hora Pelasgica. " By the Bishop of St. David's." The objections which the Bishop of St. David's has made to the Hora PelasgiccE, will be noticed in due season. At present I am concerned only with his objections to my explanation of Matth. xvi. 18. which form both the beg'mning and the end of his remarks on the Pelasgi. I have asserted, and still assert, that our Saviour alluded to St. Peter, and not to himself, when he spake of the Rock, on which the Church should be founded. I have asserted, and still assert, that the true import of the words 2i/ el HeTjOo?, kol eirl Tavrrf rrj Trerpa k.t.X. was this, " Thou art Rock in name, and shalt be Rock in deed, for on thee, &c." But as hundreds and thousands have asserted, that Christ, and not St. Peter, was the Rock to which allusion was made, I have certainly no reason, either to wonder, or to complain, that the Bishop of St. David's should prefer the party, which I oppose, to the party which I espouse. It is a subject, on which every man has a right to entertain his own opinion. But I sincerely lament that his Lordship, instead of making his objections with the calmness of a critic, has urged them with all the feelings of personal asperity. He considers the Note in question as a kind of insult to his Lordship's opinion in particular, though I neither mentioned the name of his Lordship, nor said any thing, by which his Lordship could be particularly distinguished. Why then should his Lordship be so offended at my opposing an opinion, which is so far from being peculiar to his Lordship, that he has merely repeated what almost every Lutheran and Calvinist Divine had asserted from the time of the Reforma- tion to the middle of the last century ? Yet one should sup- pose from his Lordship's language, as well as from his Lord- ship's feeiingS; that the opinion was his own invention. He fven begins his pamphlet with these words, " The Protestant 282 Appendix. *' sense, which I have given to the passage in St. Matthew's " Gospel, concerning the rock of the Christian Church, &c." His Lordship should rather have said, " The sense, which /, " in common with hundreds of commentators, &c." And with respect to his Lordship m particular, I can assure him, that his pamphlet entitled " Christ, and not St. Peter, the Rock of the Christian Church," never came within my notice, till it was re-printed in the second volume of the " Churchman Armed," and in the same year (1814) in which the Com- parative View was printed. Which of the two publications first left the press I cannot say : but this 1 can safely sav, that my own book was published before 1 had either seen the other, or knew any thing of the other. My copy of the *' Churchman Armed," was sent to me as a present, by a much respected friend, who well knows, that he sent it some months after the appearance of the Comparative \'iew. I might consider therefore the publication of his Lordship's pamphlet in the " Churchman Armed," as a personal attack upon me, with as much reason as his Lordship considers the Note in question as a perspual attack upon him. But let us suppose, that I had both seen and read the pamphlet, for which his Lordship feels so much tcndcrnoss : to what, even in that case, would the oft'ence amount, of which his Lord- ship complains ? Simply to this ; that whereas his Lordship had joined the ranks of oue numerous party, I had ventured to join the ranks of another numerous party, and, believing that the former party had argued very uncritically, I took the li/jerty to sai/ so. And since every new exaunuaiion of the subject serves only to cotijirm me in that opinion, 1 cannot possibly renounce it, though 1 at present knoxv his Lordship's dislike to it. However " uncourtcous" his Lordship may consider a dissent from his Lordship's ophiion, 1 cannot sub- scribe to a doctrine, which in my conscience 1 believe to be false. If indeed his Lordship will supi)ly me with argu- ments, sufficient to confute my present opinion, I will endeavour to renounce it : for his J^ordship well knows that endeavours of that sort are not always successfid. But tlien he must furnish me with other arguments, than those which hii has given in his late publication : for they are such, as Appendix. 283 have been repeatedly urged, and repeatedly answered. He contends that irerpa cannot refer to Ilerjoo?, the name of the Apostle, because Trerpog, as an appellative, signifies a stone, whereas irerpa signifies a rock. And though in Syriac the same word, with the same termination, is used in both places, yet even here, says his Lordship, there is a distinction : for Cepha, when used as an appellative, is feminine, whereas Cepha, when used for the name of a man, is masculine. But as it is unnecessary to dwell any longer on such arguments, I will proceed to the last passage of his Postscript, where he has given a summary of the evidence against me. " The Professor's interpretation of our Saviour's words " is inadmissible on many accounts. Fact and history are ** against it. The Church of Christ was not built on St. " Peter. The Greek text is against it. The Syriac Version " is against it. And, beside Chrysostom and Augustine, ** some of the highest critical authorities since the Reforma- " tion are against it : Casaubon in his Exercitationes " Baronianae, Schmidius in his Notes on the New Testament, " Spanhtim in his Opera Theologica, Vol. III. and Bishop ** Horsley in his Sermons, Vol. I." Here indeed is a host of evidence against the opinion that our Saviour alluded to HeT^o?, when he used the ex- pression eTTt TavTri rrj TrcTpa. But when this evidence is weighed in the balance, it will be found miserably zmnting. In the first place, fact and history are not against it : for the primitive Church, the Church of Jerusalem, was founded by St. Peter, as I have shewn already. Secondly, the Greek text is not against it : for the difference between Herpo^ and HeTpa, when Her^oo? is a proper name, is no argument against the reference from one to the other. Thirdly, the Syriac text is decidedly in its favour, as every one must know, who is acquainted with that language. Fourthly, Chrysostom and Augustine are so far from referring the words cTTi Tavrrf Tri TreTpa to our Saviour, that they refer them expressly to St. Peter, as 1 have shewn already.* In respect * In the passage above quoted from Chrysostom, as well as ia the passage quoted from Augustine, cttI tj; irtTpa is referred to St. Peter, though a distinction is made in those passages, between c t^« 284 Appendix. to Casaubon and Spanheim, his Lordship is not mistaken : and these are the only two examples in which he is right. Though he might have found a hundred examples among the old German Divines, who assert with his Lordship, that " Christ, and not St. Peter," was the rock, to which allusion was made, he has unfortunately selected an example, which forms an exception to the rule. For Schmidius expressly refers CTrt ravrtj rjj Trer/j^ to St. Peter, though, like some other Divines, he distinguishes between the confession of St. Peter and the person of St. Peter. He even argues from -Trerpa to Tlerjoos, and calls it Allusio Trapavo/uiacrTiKij . But his Lordship's attempt to enlist Bishop Horsley into his service (the only English Divine whom he has mentioned) is still more extraordinary. For Bishop Horsley is so far from asserting with his Lordship, that " Christ, and not St. Peter," was the rock to which allusion was made ; that in the very volume to which his Lordship refers the reader, Bishop Horsley has taken great pains to shew that the words eirl TauTri T>} irerpq.j must apply to St. Peter. Surely there- fore his Lordship can have read only Bishop Horsley's text ; for if he had read the Sermon, he would have hardly ventured tlie person of St. Peter and ihe fait/t of St. Peter. Rut I have lately examined the works of Chrj'sostom with a view to this very text, and have found various passages, in which Chrysostoni speaks generally of St. Peter, as the rock or foundation of the Christian Church. For instance in the Benedictine edition, Tom. II. p. 300. he says, IIETI'ON 36 uTav Aeyw, t»/i/ FIETPAN Aeyo) Ttjv dppayfj, t»;V Kl'iiniAA Tf/f dau\€vrov. In Tom. VI. p. 124. he calls St. Peter again ./ Kl'IimS Tr7? eVKA»/